[Taxacom] "Felder & Rogenhofer 1874"
stephen_thorpe at yahoo.co.nz
Sun Sep 24 16:21:42 CDT 2017
This is precisely the sort of nomenclatural nonsense which gives taxonomy a bad name! For God's sake, why not just have a simple rule in the Code which says that illustrations published before the text are deemed to be published simultaneously with the text? It would save so much pointless work trying to determine dates. Such work has absolutely no scientific content or merit.
On Sat, 23/9/17, Doug Yanega <dyanega at ucr.edu> wrote:
Subject: [Taxacom] "Felder & Rogenhofer 1874"
To: "iczn-list" <iczn-list at afriherp.org>, "taxacom" <TAXACOM at MAILMAN.NHM.KU.EDU>
Received: Saturday, 23 September, 2017, 4:44 AM
Hi. Can anyone give a definitive statement
regarding the work linked here:
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
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.
Doug Yanega Dept.
of Entomology Entomology Research
Univ. of California, Riverside, CA
92521-0314 skype: dyanega
phone: (951) 827-4315 (disclaimer:
opinions are mine, not UCR's)
"There are some enterprises in
which a careful disorderliness
true method" - Herman Melville, Moby Dick, Chap. 82
Taxacom Mailing List
Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be
searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
Send Taxacom mailing list submissions
to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
To subscribe or unsubscribe via the
Web, visit: http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
You can reach the person managing the
list at: taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting
Ambiguity for 30 Some Years, 1987-2017.
More information about the Taxacom