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

[Francisco Welter-Schultes]

8th edition from 1807 p. 101

http://resolver.sub.uni-goettingen.de/purl?PPN614778913

9th edition from 1816 (Wien) p. 80

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/154789#page/100/mode/1up

10th edition from 1821 p. 103

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/155034#page/125/mode/1up

11th edition from 1825 p. 85

https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/155072#page/103/mode/1up

So the citation you found from McCoy would correspond to the 1821 
edition. In those times it was usual practice to regard subsequent 
editions of a work as some kind of replacement of earlier editions. So 
maybe they thought that dingo as contained in the most recent edition 
would have to be backdated to the first edition from 1799 or 1780, 
because it replaced that, and compete with that date with Meyer's 1793 
name.

Cheers
Francisco

Am 06.05.2018 um 02:29 schrieb Tony Rees:
> OK, I found an old (1874) reference by McCoy which attributes the name to
> "Blumenbach" (in parentheses, however I am presuming that the usage of
> these was not standardised at the time in the sense that we know it now):
> 
> https://books.google.com.au/books?id=fd8QAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA2-PA45&lpg=RA2-PA45&dq=Blumenbach+canis+dingo
> 
> The citation given (on p. 8 of that work) is to "Canis dingo, Blumenbach
> Handbuch, p. 103" (no edition or date stated).
> 
> I presume that this is "Handbuch der Naturgeschichte". You, Fancisco, would
> probably be able to tell me/us more about the dates of publication and
> editions of this work. The earliest version I have found that contains the
> dingo reference is the 6th edition (1799) and treats the name as a
> subspecies(?) of Canis familiaris, but on page 100:
> 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.
> The dingo does not appear to be mentioned in earlier editions (see list at
> https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/search?searchTerm=Handbuch%20der%20Naturgeschichte&sort=date#/titles
> ).
> 
> In the 7th edition (1803) the dingo appears, again as a subspecies, on
> p.98, in the 9th edition (1814) it is on p. 102; I have not checked
> elsewhere as the task is somewhat tedious... in any case, it would be neat
> to know to which edition McCoy was referring, and whether in that instance
> Blumenbach did indeed cite it as a species in its own right. However it
> still appears that Blumenbach's treatments would post-date that of Meyer,
> 1793 and so be of no nomenclatural relevance.
> 
> Regards - Tony
> 
> Tony Rees, New South Wales, Australia
> https://about.me/TonyRees
> 
> On 6 May 2018 at 06:38, Francisco Welter-Schultes <fwelter at gwdg.de> wrote:
> 
>> We went through Blumenbach's works from before 1793 and never found that
>> name. Meyer 1793 did not mention Blumenbach. Difficult to explain why this
>> name has been attributed to Blumenbach.
>>
>> Cheers
>> Francisco
>> _______________________________________________
>> Taxacom Mailing List
>> Taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu,
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> The Taxacom Archive back to 1992 may be searched at:
>> http://taxacom.markmail.org
>>
>> Send Taxacom mailing list submissions to taxacom at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>> To subscribe or unsubscribe via the Web, visit:
>> http://mailman.nhm.ku.edu/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/taxacom
>> You can reach the person managing the list at:
>> taxacom-owner at mailman.nhm.ku.edu
>>
>> Nurturing Nuance while Assaulting Ambiguity for 31 Some Years, 1987-2018.
>>
>