[Taxacom] Abbreviations/conventions in L. Agassiz' "Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis"

[Geoff Read]

No, I'm wrong to doubt and there aren't going to be multiple secondaries. 
On looking at more of the alternates they're indicating his own ideas for
emendations as others have correctly said, and Neave correctly reported.
Agassiz must have been one formidable Latin scholar to encounter.

The Myiadestes complicated sequence of entries is a good example of the
system.

Amazing work.

Geoff


On Thu, July 12, 2012 7:58 pm, Geoff Read wrote:
> Hi Tony,
>
> In the example I found - Scolelepis Blainville 1828 (Scr. Scolecolepis) -
> Neave was seemingly correct to attribute the first appearance of the 2nd
> alternate spelling to Agassiz's listing (at least via my reading of the
> occurrences reported by BHL). This is somewhat of a surprise to me as its
> appearance is usually dated a decade or so later and attributed to
> Malmgren (1867).  I doubt Agassiz was creating a new spelling though, or
> emending anything. From the context he was indicating  it as a secondary
> spelling he had seen, & thus thought a misspelling, or at least the junior
> synonym. "Scr." might be from "scripsit" - 'he [someone else] has written
> it'.
>
> I wonder if there are multiple secondary names anywhere in Agassiz and how
> Neave reported those.
>
> Geoff
>
> On Thu, July 12, 2012 1:15 pm, Tony.Rees at csiro.au wrote:
>
>> The reason for caring (at all) about these is that over 2,100 generic
>> names in Neave are credited to Agassiz 1846, Nomen. Zool. Index Univ. as
>> the authority, the vast majority as "emend. pro..." although from the
>> above it would seem mostly that he was recording alternative spellings
>> under "Scr." - or am I perhaps wrong here? In practical terms it does
>> make
>> a difference, since emendations (justified or unjustified) are
>> considered
>> available names and therefore enter homonymy, while simple errors (i.e.
>> incorrect subsequent spellings not intended as new names) do not.