Dear Joao, Geoff and others:
Re Arwidsson 1906 vs.1907, the 1906 date would be the correct one if copies
of the thesis were distributed at that time. As Geoff pointed out, both
years are shown on the title page, and that the defense took place in 1907
does not change the fact that the paper appears to have been printed (and
perhaps distributed to friends as well as the dissertation committee) in
1906. Probably on the basis of the 1906 date, while still in Denmark I had
corrected the publication date in my copy of Hartman's Literature to 1906.
The most recent (*1999) revision of the ICZN Code (the green book) states
(p. 23):*
"*Article 21.8: Advance distribution of separates and preprints. *Before
2000, an author who distributed separates in advance of the specified date
of publication of the work in which the material is published thereby
advanced the date of publication. The advance issue of separates after 1999
does not do so, whereas preprints, clearly imprinted with their own date of
publication, may be published works from the date of their issue (see
Glossary: "separate", "preprint")."
In Denmark and probably also elsewhere, it seems to have been common
for published copies of a doctoral thesis to have been made available not
only to the doctoral committee, but also to colleagues prior to the defense
itself. In Arwidsson's case, the defense (in Norway) was scheduled for the
year after the publication, in others (e.g., Erik Rasmussen's dissertation -
see below), apparently not.
In my copy of Hartman 1951 I had crossed out the 7 in Arwidsson's 1907 date
and replaced it with a 6. Arwidsson himself cites the paper as being
published in 1907, but as pointed out by Geoff, the cover has 1906 with a
note that the defense would be in 1907.
That does not mean that no copies were distributed before 1907 as the
doctoral committee would of necessity need to see the dissertation before
the defense, and colleagues who were interested or had helped in various
ways would probably want to see the final results, especially if they wanted
to ask questions from the floor after the dissertation committee was
done. Page 3 is also dated June, 1906.
I agree with Jim Blake that using the 1906 date would reduce confusion about
which 1907 paper was being referred to. On the other hand, if both 1907
papers were cited in the same contribution, one could simply append letters
after the date (1907a, 1907b, etc.).
Mary
Mary E. Petersen
polychaete1 from gmail.com
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:31 AM, 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?
>> Thanks,
>> Geoff
>>>> 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>-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20100417/fa3afc63/attachment.html
