[Taxacom] [iczn-list] "Felder & Rogenhofer 1874"

Ian Kitching i.kitching at nhm.ac.uk
Fri Sep 22 14:41:35 CDT 2017


Dear Doug,
                As far as the Lepidoptera are concerned, the authorships and dates were worked out as far as feasible by Nässig,WA; Speidel,W (2007): On the authorships of the Lepidoptera Atlas of the "Reise der Novara", with a list of the taxa of Bombycoidea [s.l.] therein described (Insecta, Lepidoptera, Bombycoidea). Senckenberg. biol. 87, 63-74.

Cheers,

Ian


________________________________________
From: iczn-list [iczn-list-bounces at afriherp.org] on behalf of Doug Yanega [dyanega at ucr.edu]
Sent: 22 September 2017 17:44
To: iczn-list; taxacom
Subject: [iczn-list] "Felder & Rogenhofer 1874"

Hi. Can anyone give a definitive statement regarding the work linked here:

http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/1221095#page/9/mode/1up

Here is the situation: this particular work, as linked here from the Smithsonian's copy, LOOKS like a single work, and the second page says "Juli 1875". However, if you look at the plates at the end, they all have a date at the bottom that says 1868. There are some names that appear differently in the text and plates, so potentially made available on different dates if they were not simultaneously issued. This potentially affects the validity of at least one genus name presently in use, so I would like to be certain I have the details correct.

Neave, in the Nomenclator Zoologicus, cites names in the plates as being from 1868, and names in the text as being from 1874.

References to this work in the NHM Catalog at

http://www.nhm.ac.uk/our-science/data/butmoth/

cite the names appearing in the plates as being from 1874 and the text as being from 1875 (despite both being linked to the BHL copy which has them in a single work).

I have not yet been able to locate any source that explains (1) what evidence there is that the plates and text were published separately, nor (2) how and why one of the dates is usually given as 1874, nor (3) why the dates of the presumed separate parts are given inconsistently by different sources. It also strikes me as odd that the work seems uniformly cited as "Felder & Rogenhofer" when the text rather clearly lists TWO Felders, Cajetan and Rudolf (shouldn't it then be Felder, Felder & Rogenhofer?).

This is very confusing, to say the least, and I would be grateful if anyone can point to something that would help iron this out.

Peace,

--
Doug Yanega      Dept. of Entomology       Entomology Research Museum
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA 92521-0314     skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer: opinions are mine, not UCR's)
             http://cache.ucr.edu/~heraty/yanega.html
  "There are some enterprises in which a careful disorderliness
        is the true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82



More information about the Taxacom mailing list