Hi Geoff and all,
I'm afraid I don't agree in using 1907, as there is a publication clearly
dated 1906. Probably it was a publication for distribution previous to the
presentation of the thesis, for those who could be interested in attending,
or to museums' libraries. Being the thesis presented the 2nd February 1907,
and taking into account the mail distribution by then (well, sometimes it
seems better than today...), I think we can assume it was distributed in
1906, even if this distribution was limited. Fauvel, for instance, who was
contemporary of Arwidsson, clearly had a 1906 copy. Besides, it seems that
the libraries of at least some of the Natural Museums existing by then, have
a copy dated 1906 (the Smithsonian is an example, and I also saw a 1906 copy
at the Natural Museum of Lisbon). And these libraries were opened to the
public.
How many copies were printed and distributed, and when they were
distributed, we don't know, but we can't deny there is a publication date
(and hard copies) of 1906, and that this 1906's publication was available to
at least part of Arwidsson's contemporaries working with polychaetes, and
was used in their works. My 1906 copy, for instance, is dedicated to someone
(impossible to see who, and unfortunately, without date).
I'm in favour of using the first publication date available, whenever
possible, as it can be difficult (or impossible) to show exactly when they
were distributed. And in this case I think there are enough evidences that
it was probably already available for others in 1906 to deny them. The
number of times the work, and the new taxa in it, have been cited as 1906 is
an evidence of that.
Besides, we can't consider Zoological Record as authoritative, as if it
states that the publication was published as "Zoologische Jahrbücher 25,
supplement 9" it is wrong, as it was as "Supplement 9, Heft 1". As Sergio
explained (and my 1907 copy states in a strip of paper glued on it), it was
announced to be published in Volume 25 of that journal, but after all it was
published as a Supplement of the same journal (Supplement 9).
Well, these are my 2 cents and my opinion (which I can change, if shown to
be wrong). Sorry for the boring explanation...
Hope to see you all in Lecce, for a grappa! Well, maybe better a beer...
All the best,
João
João Gil
CEAB-CSIC
Carrer d'accés a la Cala Sant Francesc, 14
E-17300 BLANES (GIRONA)
SPAIN
Email: gil from ceab.csic.es
Telef. (34) 972.33.61.01
Fax: (34) 972.33.78.06
-----Mensaje original-----
De: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu
[mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] En nombre de Geoff Read
Enviado el: viernes, 16 de abril de 2010 11:27
Para: Annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Asunto: Re: [Annelida] Arwidsson date
Dear all,
Thanks for the several comments. I think that 1907 is the correct date
for the distribution of Arwidsson's Scandinavian monograph on maldanids
in a journal, although the year 1906 has been used by some workers,
simply because it was the date printed in the text in front of them, in
both thesis and journal versions. While I'm in favour of not
complicating things, it looks like people living then knew the monograph
was actually published 1907, so we should accept that.
In 1911 Arwidsson in Schwedischen Südpolarexpedition quoted his own
work as published in 1907 and published in Zoologische Jahrbücher. I
could stop there, couldn't I? Case closed? Also the work appears in
Zoological record for 1907 with the date 1907, source as Zoologische
Jahrbücher 25, supplement 9, and in Zoo Rec in the adjacent years there
are no mention of other versions.
The version unique only because of the preliminary pages with
thesis-related detail is the one that exists online at BHL. The hard
copy is in the Smithsonian. I don't think we can consider that it was
certainly published earlier, or published in 1906, because there is no
evidence available of the date when it was distributed, or that it was
publicly available. Both the journal and thesis versions were printed
identically, apart from the preliminary pages, in the same place in
Germany by the same printer - I know this because I have a hard copy of
the journal version. I suspect there's no way of showing one was printed
or distributed substantially ahead of the other.
Geoff
>>> On 15/04/2010 at 8:31 p.m., "Geoff Read" <g.read from niwa.co.nz>
wrote:
> Dear colleagues,
>> Perhaps someone has concluded which year Ivar Arwidsson published
his
> thesis "Studien über die skandinavischen und arktischen Maldaniden
...",
> 1906 or 1907?
>> Usually when there is uncertainty whether the printed date (here
1906,
> text completed in June) is correct we go for the next year. Hartman
> (1951) thought 1907, as did Light (1991, also in his thesis). I am
> inclined to follow the leader, but want reassuring if possible,
since
> several taxa entries in WoRMS would need to be changed.
>> You can see the title pages at
>http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/87302 and they seem to say
> the thesis defense was in Feb 1907, but is this relevant?
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &
Atmospheric Research Ltd.
_______________________________________________
Annelida mailing list
Post: Annelida from net.bio.net
Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida
Resources: http://www.annelida.net
