[Taxacom] "Felder & Rogenhofer 1874"

[Stephen Thorpe]

Clear and stable is important, yes, but so is simple (and not requiring work for no real gain or scientific relevance). Do you really think that such "work" (to determine historical dates of publication of plates) is a good use of research funding in a world where still untold thousands of taxa are undescribed?

Stephen

--------------------------------------------
On Mon, 25/9/17, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:

 Subject: Re: [Taxacom] "Felder & Rogenhofer 1874"
 To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
 Received: Monday, 25 September, 2017, 9:38 AM
 
 The dates of such works are not
 the problem. It is possible to research 
 them. You are right, it is additional work, but
 I have no problem with 
 it. The most
 important thing is a clear and stable rule.
 
 -----
 Francisco
 
 Am
 24.09.2017 um 23:21 schrieb 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.
 >   
 >
 _______________________________________________
 > 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.
 >
 
 _______________________________________________
 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.