Pages 9465 and 9466. The sequence shown as the cleavage site of erbB4/HER4 (HGLSLPVENRLYTYDH) in Figure 1 and Table 1 is actually the cleavage site of the heparinbinding epidermal growth factor (HB-EGF). Moreover, reaction products shown in Figure 2 (bottom right panel) correspond also to the cleavage of HB-EGF by TACE, not HER4. Therefore, every reference in Materials and Methods and Results to erbB4/HER4 actually corresponds to HB-EGF. While this inadvertant mislabeling of the HB-EGF substrate as HER4 is unfortunate, it does not change any of the conclusions of our paper. We sincerely apologize for any confusion that this might have caused among readers.

No abstract

Over the last hundred years, Anzac Day (25 April), the anniversary of the initial landing of Australian and New Zealand Army Corps (ANZAC) at Gallipoli in 1915, has captured the Australian and New Zealand national imaginations. The day remembers the first significant engagement involving Australian and New Zealand soldiers in the First World War. This article is an early report of a major project that will chart Anzac Day’s origins, development and contested meanings. It is both an historical study, tracing changes in commemoration and remembrance over time, and an investigation of the ways in which Australians and New Zealanders mark Anzac Day in the present day. It will interrogate the shaping of historical sensibility by exploring the complex connections between personal and collective remembrance. One of the challenges to understanding Anzac Day is dealing with the multiplicity of meanings of such a large‐scale, diverse and now venerable (in modern Australian terms) observation. It will also examine the neglected subject of Anzac Day’s observance outside the Australia and New Zealand – in Europe, Asia, North Africa and the Pacific – where it has long played a role in expressing the identities of Antipodean expatriate communities.

This article analyses why some countries in South East Asia have set aside a national day to remember the Japanese Occupation in the cause of nation-building and why other countries have tended to choose not to remember the Japanese Occupation because for them it does not further nation-building. Singapore, the Philippines and Burma have all remembered their experience of struggle and sacrifice during the Second World War to further national unity. However, most South East Asian countries have chosen at a national level not to commemorate this undoubtedly major watershed in the region's history.

In Singapore, there has been a ‘democratization’ of memory through heritage blogs and Facebook, YouTube clips of reminiscences about the past, as well as the state sponsored web-based Singapore Memory Project. Many Singaporeans are recording and making public their own memories through the digital media. Is this material mainly nostalgia rather than sources of the past that can give us a greater insight into what happened? Do these memories provide counter-narratives to the official version of the Singapore past, which is known as the Singapore Story?