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

Thu Jul 12 18:52:58 CDT 2012

Dear Gary,

Sorry, I'm the one that is now confused... either Neave is correct in calling these "emendations" (in which case they are available names) or as stated below, they are unavailable - maybe "suggested emendations, not available from this work" would be more accurate - do you agree?

Regards - Tony

> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Gary Rosenberg
> Sent: Friday, 13 July 2012 7:28 AM
> To: taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Abbreviations/conventions in L. Agassiz'
> "Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis"
> 
> I don't agree that the names in Agassiz are emendations: Agassiz didn't
> use the names as valid as required by ICZN Article 11.5, and he did not
> adopt the changed spellings as required by Article 33.2. His work is a
> list of names, not a list of taxa that he considered valid.
> 
> The abbreviation "scr." could mean "scribe" (i.e., the imperative of
> scribo), analogous to "vide", being  a direction from Agassiz how one
> should write a name. These changed names have no standing in
> nomenclature unless adopted by later authors, in which case they date
> from their adoption, not from their appearance in Agassiz. They cannot
> be regarded as names introduced in synonymy (Article 11.6), because
> Agassiz didn't treat them as synonyms of names that he used as valid.
> 
> Gary Rosenberg
> Academy of Natural Sciences
> Drexel University
> 
> -----Original Message-----
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [mailto:taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Tony.Rees at csiro.au
> Sent: July 12, 2012 4:41 PM
> To: r.e.petit at att.net; gread at actrix.gen.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Abbreviations/conventions in L. Agassiz'
> "Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis"
> 
> Thanks, Dick and all, for the responses, so Neave was correct in citing
> these alternatives as emendations with authorship of Agassiz...
> 
> For readers' information who may not also be aware of this, Neal
> Evenhuis also contacted me pointing out that the year of publication of
> Agassiz' "Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis" should indeed be
> cited as 1846, since the BMNH apparently received its copy on 29
> December that year, even though the publisher's original information on
> the external cover (normally not bound) regarding the dates of
> publication of the individual parts said 1847 (as stated elsewhere)
> (refer Evenhuis, Litteratura Taxonomica Dipterorum (1758-1930), p. 50).
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> ________________________________________
> From: taxacom-bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu [taxacom-
> bounces at mailman.nhm.ku.edu] On Behalf Of Richard Petit
> [r.e.petit at att.net]
> Sent: Thursday, 12 July 2012 11:12 PM
> To: gread at actrix.gen.nz; taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Abbreviations/conventions in L. Agassiz'
> "Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis"
> 
> Agassiz considered himself to be the supreme authority on names. He
> rarely encountered a name that he could not "improve". His endless
> emendations continue to cause problems. They should have been ruled out
> as being available en masse many years ago.
> 
> Also, Agassiz published unauthorized pirated German and French
> "editions" of Sowerby's "Mineral Conchology" in which he created new
> nomina.  Then he wrote Sowerby, stating that Sowerby should not be
> upset as his translations gave wider distribution to the work!
> 
> dick p.
> 
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Geoff Read" <gread at actrix.gen.nz>
> To: <taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu>
> Sent: Thursday, July 12, 2012 5:04 AM
> Subject: Re: [Taxacom] Abbreviations/conventions in L. Agassiz'
> "Nomenclatoris Zoologici Index Universalis"
> 
> 
> > 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.
> >
> >
> >
> > _______________________________________________
> >
> > Taxacom Mailing List
> > Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> > http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> >
> > The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> > these methods:
> >
> > (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> >
> > (2) a Google search specified as:
> > site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here
> 
> _______________________________________________
> 
> Taxacom Mailing List
> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
> 
> The Taxacom archive going back to 1992 may be searched with either of
> these methods:
> 
> (1) by visiting http://taxacom.markmail.org
> 
> (2) a Google search specified as:
> site:mailman.nhm.ku.edu/pipermail/taxacom  your search terms here