[Taxacom] Correct authorship for the genus Aotus (Mammalia)?

Francisco Welter-Schultes fwelter at gwdg.de
Wed Jun 2 18:27:31 CDT 2021


This link
https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/7538169
and this link
https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k10405675/f322.item#
show the same page (p. 306).

The name Aotes on p. 306 appears in a French text where French 
scientific names were used (Sagoins, Sapajous, Nyctipithèques, Lori). 
These were presented in the plural. The name Aotes belonged to this 
line, French scientific name of the genus level, presented in the plural 
(this is also clear from the Greek derivation behind, which was also 
given in the plural).
French scientific names at the genus level do not interfere in the 
Linnean nomenclatural system, they are not regulated by the Code.

So Aotes is a name that is not regulated by the Code, and irrelevant for 
nomenclature. This name can be ignored.

Sherborn (Index Animalium) recorded Aotes as a scientific name, but we 
have to consider that Sherborn only knew English and Latin, and was not 
always able to understand French texts and to derive correct 
conclusions. He probably did not understand Greek either. This might 
explain the entry for Aotes, which Sherborn would problably not have 
included, had he understood the non-Latin nature of the name.

Analysis of p. 358:
Here the name was presented as a Latin (hence, Linnean scientific) name, 
also on p. 357. Presented with description on p. 358, so, made available 
at that occasion.
Name Aotus was attributed to Illiger on p. 358, description was 
attributed to Geoffroy. Under Art. 50.1.1 the name must be attributed to 
the author of the work, in this case Humboldt alone, who was the single 
author of the corresponding chapter as indicated on p. 353.
One species originally included, Simia trivirgata Humboldt, 1809 (if 
Sherborn recorded this correctly), type by monotypy.

This is my judgment of the content.

The presentation by McKenna & Bell, 1997 as Aotus Humbildt, 1811 from p. 
358 seems to be correct, so far.

I cannot contribute more details on the dates. Pp 1-412 of the first 
edition seems to correspond to pp. 1-309 of the second edition. If true, 
then Aotus was not contained in the first edition.

Illiger: must have appeared after Apr 1811, and obviously before 
Humboldt p. 358 was published. So the name should be available from 
there, with Illiger's authorship (name was attributed to Humboldt, 
description was by Illiger).

Difficult case.
Humboldt p. 358 cited "Aotus Humboldti, Illiger. (Caulin, Hist. de la 
Nueva-Andal., p. 39)". I did not find that source, and did not 
understand what was meant there. Antonio Caulín published a work in 
1779, which was later reprinted various times.

Best wishes
Francisco

-----
Francisco Welter-Schultes

Am 02.06.2021 um 22:15 schrieb Tony Rees via Taxacom:
> Sorry, the link I gave for the Humboldt (Ed. 2) record for "Aotes" (p. 306)
> was incorrect, the correct version is
> https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/7538169 . Here the name does not
> appear to be a plural.
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> 
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 05:54, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> 
>> Thanks, Neal and Rod for responding thus far.
>>
>> So, thanks to Rod's link on Wikidata, we can see the Humboldt record here
>> (p. 358), cited as Aotus Illiger:
>> https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/7538221 . His previous use of
>> "Aotes", considered the correct version in Nomenclator Zoologicus, appears
>> earlier, on p. 307 here: https://www.e-rara.ch/zuz/content/zoom/7538179,
>> however this looks to me like a plural (and also informal) treatment,
>> although I could be wrong...
>>
>> This is in the edition with "1811" on the title page, actually 1812
>> according to the work previously cited by Neal i.e. Macgillavry (1930),
>> from which it appears to be Edition 2 of Humboldt's account (actually, by
>> Humboldt & Bonpland). There seems to be an Edition 1 of the same work with
>> the printed date 1805, actual dates 1805-1809, however I do not know if the
>> name(s) appeared there as well. If they did, authorship for "Aotus" should
>> presumably Humboldt, 1809, but ideally one should confirm this with a view
>> of the original; otherwise, Humboldt's name (with date corrected to 1812)
>> would be a later usage of Illiger's name from 1811, if that date is correct
>> (perhaps confirmed by Humboldt's ascription of the name to Illiger).
>>
>> So thus far I am still a bit confused: so far we have seen Illiger's 1811
>> work, with the name ascribed to Humboldt, and Humbold's 1812 ("1811") work,
>> in the second edition, with the name ascribed to Illiger; and both Wilson &
>> Reeder (MSW3, 2005) and McKenna & Bell (1997) favour different authorities
>> for this genus - see my initial message for details.
>>
>> Rod or other, if you can locate Edition 1 of Humboldt & Bonpland's work,
>> we can see if the name "Aotus" appears there, maybe? If it does not, that
>> might explain why Humboldt later ascribed the name to Illiger, which would
>> otherwise make little sense...
>>
>> Onwards and upwards - Tony
>>
>>
>> On Wed, 2 Jun 2021 at 17:16, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> Hi Neal & Tony,
>>>
>>> Interesting. I’ve added that article ("Bibliographische bijdrage II”) to
>>> BioStor and Wikidata, and added a few more links to the Wikidata item for
>>> "Recueil d'observations de zoologie”
>>> https://www.wikidata.org/wiki/Q56916628 including links to a couple of
>>> scanned versions in libraries other than BHL (which lacks volume 1). It
>>> would be nice to figure out a clean way to add all the publication date
>>> info to this item (and indeed to taxonomic works more generally). The
>>> Wikidata model allows for detailed referencing, so we could capture the
>>> dates and give credit to those who did the work in establishing them.
>>>
>>> Regards,
>>>
>>> Rod
>>>
>>>
>>> On 2 Jun 2021, at 06:50, Neal Evenhuis <neale at bishopmuseum.org> wrote:
>>>
>>> Actually, Sherborn did not have the last word on those dates. Macgillavry
>>> (1930) corrected many of Sherborn's dates and clarified the two editions,
>>> which overlapped dates of publication. His article on the dating of this
>>> work is here;
>>> https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/264426#page/247/mode/1up
>>>
>>> It looks like from this that the date is 1809 and not 1811 or 1812 for
>>> livraison 5/6 that contained p. 306, which is what I followed (along with
>>> ms notes by Sherborn I used) in my dating of the work in my LTD (1997, p.
>>> 381):
>>> https://tinyurl.com/3s6tu293
>>>
>>> Authorship should be Humboldt for new taxa in Vol. I of the "Recueil
>>> d'observations".
>>>
>>> Cheers,
>>>
>>> Neal L. Evenhuis
>>> Senior Curator of Entomology
>>> Bishop Museum
>>> Honolulu, Hawaii  96817-2704, USA
>>>
>>> On 6/1/21, 6:45 PM, "Taxacom on behalf of Roderic Page via Taxacom" <
>>> taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu on behalf of
>>> taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu> wrote:
>>>
>>>     There is information on publications dates here:
>>> https://doi.org/10.1080/00222939908678146 (better quality scan in BHL
>>> https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/16026148 ).
>>>
>>>     If I read Sherborn’s article correctly, Humbolt’s use of the name
>>> (credited by him to Illiger) is dated 1812.
>>>
>>>     Regards,
>>>
>>>     Rod
>>>
>>>
>>>
> _______________________________________________
> Taxacom Mailing List
> 
> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> For list information; to subscribe or unsubscribe, 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
> The Taxacom email archive back to 1992 can be searched at: http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> Nurturing nuance while assaulting ambiguity for about 34 years, 1987-2021.
> 


More information about the Taxacom mailing list