[Taxacom] "Felder & Rogenhofer 1874"

[Stephen Thorpe]

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.

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
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:
 
 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
 
 _______________________________________________
 Taxacom Mailing List
 Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
 http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
 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.