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

[Tony Rees]

Sorry, for "antacticus" read " antarticus " in the relevant name above
(Canis antarticus Kerr, 1792). Regards - Tony

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

On 4 May 2018 at 15:01, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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_vTmouvaAhWFfbwKHW7NA4gQ6AEIRjA
> E#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
>