[Taxacom] Correct authorship for the genus Aotus (Mammalia)?
tonyrees49 at gmail.com
Fri Jun 4 02:16:17 CDT 2021
Small typo... for " the name does appear there" read " the name does not
Regards - Tony
On Fri, 4 Jun 2021 at 17:14, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:
> Dear all,
> After some additional offline discussion with Rod, Neal and Francisco, I
> have come to the following position (for now...) and added it as a
> "taxonomic note" to the relevant records in my database - for the records
> Aotus Illiger, Aotus Humboldt and Aotes Humboldt... hopefully this is the
> best summary that we can do, unless of course there is anything else to
> "The nomenclatural status of "Aotus" is confused in the original
> publications and in subsequent literature. Humboldt, 1812 (dated 1811 on
> the cover and frequently cited thus) used "Aotes", apparently a French
> plural version of the name, on p. 306 of his "Recueil d'observations de
> zoologie et d'anatomie comparée...", and "Aotus" on p. 358, crediting the
> name to Illiger; Illiger in turn (1811) credits the name to Humboldt,
> presumably in anticipation of the later work. An earlier edition of
> Humboldt's account had appeared in 1809 (dated 1805 on the cover) but the
> name does appear there. In subsequent literature, Nomenclator Zoologicus
> treats Humboldt's "Aotes" (with year given as 1811) as the validly
> published instance, with "Aotus" an orthographic variant; McKenna & Bell,
> 1997, give the correct name as Aotus Humboldt, 1811; and Wilson & Reeder,
> 2005 give the name as Aotus Illiger, 1811, which appears to be correct, in
> which case Aotus Humboldt, 1812 ("1811") becomes a later usage, and Aotes
> Humboldt, 1812 ("1811") a non-name (French plural vernacular name), both
> the latter treated as unaccepted in IRMNG."
> Regards - Tony
> On Thu, 3 Jun 2021 at 06:31, Roderic Page <Roderic.Page at glasgow.ac.uk>
>> Hi Tony,
>> I too am confused, I suspect Neal might know more.
>> Is it possible that these “editions” are conflating "Recueil
>> d'observations de zoologie” with "Relation historique” (see Neal’s account
>> http://hbs.bishopmuseum.org/dating/Evenhuis1997p381.pdf ) and also
>> Gallica https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k97281w ?
>> On 2 Jun 2021, at 20:54, 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>
>>> 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.
>>> 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;
>>> 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.
>>> Authorship should be Humboldt for new taxa in Vol. I of the "Recueil
>>> 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.
More information about the Taxacom