Obscure Publications

[christian thompson]

Does anyone know of a description of a new taxon (recognized
as the original place of publication) in a book or
periodical or other work NOT contained in a library somewhere?
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=
=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D=3D

Interesting question.  Sorry, I am a zoologist, so my answer may not be =
fully relevant to botany.

First, the answer. I strongly suspect that it is NO for the past and =
definitely YES for the present.

What we know of earlier names is based on the past discovery of *obscure* =
publications and as these discoveries were made, the publications =
themselves migrated to libraries somewhere. Two examples from my speciality=
, Dipterology.

 In 1800 a friend of the great European dipterist, Meigen, published a =
pamphlet describing Meigen*s new classification. How and to whom  this =
pamphlet was distributed  is not clear, but Meigen himself NEVER cited it. =
Meigen*s new classification was generally believed to be first published =
in a scientific journal in 1803. However, at the turn of this century, the =
private library of Baron Robert von der Osten Sacken was sold. A dipterist =
(Hendel) purchased a copy of this pamphlet from it and published a paper =
(1908) outlining the consequences of this earlier version of Meigen*s =
classification. It took more than 50 years before the International =
Commission of Zoological Nomenclature  finally ruled that the 1800 =
publication did not exist as far as the rules of nomenclature was =
concerned. However, as far as the pamphlet was concerned facsimiles have =
now been published and a few more original copies have been discovered and =
so anyone can see a copy today  in various libraries world wide.

Second. It was not at ROCK CONCERT that obscure pamphlets were handed out =
at 100 or so years ago, but special functions. For example, In 1819 there =
was a special public program of the Imperial Society of Naturalists in =
Moscow to honor a distinguished Professor. In the printed program =
distributed there was a description of a new genus of flies (Medetera).  =
In this case, the event was well known and the name immediately came into =
use. But the publication was a kind of ephemera. I don*t know how many =
copies exist but after years of searching I can say I have the copy used =
by Sherbert (Index Animalism) and Leave (Nomenclature zoologic us) but I =
know of NO OTHER copy. However, again xerox copies are now available in a =
number of libraries.

So, the conclusion is that the publications that document OLD names now in =
use are available is in public libraries. =20

Also, under our new International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ICZN), =
there are provisions that will make the discovery of OLD (before 1900) =
publications irrelevant. That is, the names therein can not be used to =
replace names in use, etc.

The real problem is TODAY. Desktop publishing has become so easy and =
cheap, a lot of people are beginning to generate their own journals. And =
getting an ISSN number is simple. I know of at least 3 new *scientific* =
journals that have started in my speciality recently. AND NO PUBLIC =
LIBRARY HAS COPIES of these journals. And the editors (and usually the =
sole author of the articles therein) are not even interesting in SELLING =
copies to libraries. The only purpose of these new journals seems to be a =
way to avoid PER-REVIEW, conform to our ICZN and generate reprints for the =
author. In one case I have found myself listed as on the Editorial Board =
but the editor has been unable to either supply me with copies of the =
journal nor willing to sell copies to the Smithsonian Institution! =
Needless to say these journals are not indexed by Zoological Record. =
Unfortunately, under our code the nomenclatural actions therein published =
are available (?I think botanists would say *effectively published*).

So, in conclusion, I would strongly support the Botanical Code (and hope =
the Zoological Code*would follow) to require that all scientific publicatio=
ns be required to ensure that a minimum number of copies are available in =
PUBLIC LIBRARIES. For the future is will cause no problems, but will =
greatly the community effort to make biodiversity known to ALL.

*Interestingly, for new publication formats, such as CD-ROM, the new =
edition of the ICZN will required for these publications to be valid, =
etc., that 10 copies are deposited in PUBLIC LIBRARIES, etc. Unfortunately,=
 that does not apply to the traditional printed ones, etc.




F. Christian Thompson
Systematic Entomology Lab., USDA
Smithsonian Institution
Washington, D. C. 20560
(202) 382-1800 voice
(202) 786-9422 FAX
cthompso at sel.barc.usda.gov