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

[Tony Rees]

It is a bit weird... a google scholar search for ""dingo Meyer" (with
quotes), correct, currently gives 163 results, while the equivalent search
for "dingo Blumenbach" gives less, but a still substantial 82. Maybe this
is just the influence of a single (notionally bad) ITIS record, which flows
then into the Catalogue of Life (where it shows up at time of writing). I
still have a feeling that the reference to "Blumenbach, 1780" is probably
an error, but would be see additional information either way. (By the way,
the only citation in Index Animalium is to the work of Meyer, so that
attribution has been known for a long time).

Regards - Tony

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

On 4 May 2018 at 15:59, Tony Rees <tonyrees49 at gmail.com> wrote:

> 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/bo
>> oks?id=ObwGP1u_hu0C&printsec=frontcover&dq=Handbuch+der+
>> Naturgeschichte&hl=nl&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjo_vTmouvaAhWFfbwKH
>> W7NA4gQ6AEIRjAE#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
>>
>
>