[Taxacom] Canis [familiaris] dingo Blumenbach - a non-existent name?

[Tony Rees]

Dear Taxacomers,

I am wondering about the occasional attribution of the scientific name for
the dingo, Canis familiaris dingo / Canis dingo depending on your taxonomic
viewpoint (or even Canis lupus dingo), to Blumenbach as opposed to Meyer,
1793, which name is on the ICZN official list (conserved against C.
antacticus [sic] Kerr, 1792). For example, ITIS presently has a record for
"Canis dingo  Blumenbach, 1780" (
https://www.itis.gov/servlet/SingleRpt/SingleRpt?search_topic=TSN&search_value=183816)
as an invalid synonym of Canis lupus dingo Meyer, 1793, with the comment
"Authorship for dingo is sometimes given as Blumenbach 1790", and a
(smallish) number of other published sources cite the authorship for the
name as either "Blumenbach" or "(Blumenbach)". So far as I can see, the
dingo is included (as Canis familiaris dingo) in the 1799 edition of
Blumenbach's
"Handbuch der Naturgeschichte", as shown at
https://books.google.com.au/books?id=ObwGP1u_hu0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Handbuch+der+Naturgeschichte&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo_vTmouvaAhWFfbwKHW7NA4gQ6AEIRjAE#v=onepage&q=dingo&f=false,
but not in the 1797 edition (https://biodiversitylibrary.org/page/44308410)
or earlier.

Am I missing something, or is it safe to assume that the Blumenbach
citations can be safely disregarded in favour of the designation by Mayer
in 1793?

Regards - Tony

Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
https://about.me/TonyRees