Dear Joao and Mary, & everybody,
Thanks for your suggestions. I think we are fairly close to resolving
the causes of the variation in citing the date of Arwidsson's monograph.
Here's my latest version of the story.
The authoritative citation for Arwidsson in the journal issue is:
Arwidsson, Ivar. (1907). Studien über die skandinavischen und
arktischen Maldaniden nebst Zusammenstellung der übrigen bisher
bekannten Arten dieser Familie. Zoologische Jahrbücher. Abteilung für
Systematik, Geographie und Biologie der Tiere. Supplement 9(1): 1-308.
Plates 1-12.
There is no doubt about it. The cover page (usually removed for
binding) is dated 1907 - I have put a pdf of the cover linked to the
reference at WoRMS. ANY PUBLICATION WHICH GIVES THE DATE FOR THE JOURNAL
VERSION OF ARWIDSSON AS 1906 IS INCORRECT. For instance Eliason's 1962,
"Polychaetenfauna des Oresunds" has the citation wrong, as does Day in
his monograph. In addition the reason volume 25 of Zoologische
Jahrbücher sometimes (wrongly) appears in the citation is because
that is PRINTED AT THE BOTTOM OF PAGE 1. The monograph was intended for
volume 25, but instead appeared as a supplement not linked to a volume,
but as the ninth supplement for the journal. Zoological Record 1907 has
the correct entry (without mention of volume 25 - I misreported them).
I represent the Arwidsson thesis as:
Arwidsson, I. (1906 [?]). Studien über die skandinavischen und
arktischen Maldaniden nebst Zusammenstellung der übrigen bisher
bekannten Arten dieser Familie. Inaugural-Dissertation zur erlangung der
Doktorwürde. Der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Sektion der
Philosophischen Fakultät zu Upsala, Upsala Universitet, Upsala [sic].
1-308. Plates 1-12.
This thesis is what is online at BHL, although it is misrepresented in
the bibliographic information they give. Everyone can see exactly what
the title pages are, and there is no doubt it has 1906 printed at the
bottom. The content is exactly the same as the journal (only it lacks
the "Zool. Jahrb. xxv" at the bottom of page 1). And it was printed by
the Zoologische Jahrbücher printer in Germany (Lippert & Co, Naumburg),
with perhaps the unbound sheets which later became pages in either the
journal or the thesis printed all at one time. The title pages are
unique however, and appear to be printed in Upsala (At the bottom under
UPSALA 1906 is (translated) "Cover and title printed with K.W.
Appelbergs printing press"). There is also the information that the
thesis defense was to be 2nd febr. 1907 at 10 o'clock in the morning!
Okay, a thesis printed in 1906, with seemingly a copy obtained by many
marine science centers, but distributed when (late 1906 or early 1907),
and is there evidence it qualified as a publication in the sense of the
zoological code of the time? We know Arwidsson himself and Zoological
Record and Nomenclator Zoologicus ignored it. We know that very few
authors have cited it as such, preferring the journal publication of
1907. Fauvel (1927) is one exception and he somewhat hedged his bets,
citing a combined version, 1906 date, with both as sources.
What to do? Two publications - one 1906 probably, but cited by almost
no one until now, and one 1907, often wrongly cited as 1906. While I've
been writing this, Mary's message has come in. Taking in her information
I'm now inclining towards changing over to the Upsala thesis with 1906
as the source and date for Arwidsson's taxa. Arwidsson's thesis
qualifies as a preprint. There is no modern rule that rejects a
publication simply because it is also a thesis. NOTE this means the
Zoologische Jahrbücher supplement citation drops right out of the
picture, also just about everyone except Fauvel (!) has been wrong in
their citations, and that Nomenclator Zoologicus will have the wrong
date for genera. Otherwise, I don't think there are any taxon synonyms
or homonyms at stake.
I'm sure anyone with further slants on this will be in touch. Please
do! Thanks.
Geoff
>>> On 16/04/2010 at 10:51 p.m., "Joao Gil" <gil from ceab.csic.es> wrote:
> 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 9:51 p.m., "Joao Gil" <gil from ceab.csic.es> wrote:
> Dear Geoff and all,
>> There are two publications of the same work, one dated 1906 and the
other
> 1907. Maybe this is the reason why this work is sometimes dated as
1906 and
> others as 1907:
>> ARWIDSSON, I. 1906. Studien über die skandinavischen und arktischen
> Maldaniden nebst Zusammenstellung der übrigen bischer bekannten Arter
diese
> Familie. Inaugural-Dissertation zur Erlangung der Doktorwürde mit
> genehmigung der Matematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Sektion der
> Philosophischen Fakultät zu Upsala. Lippert & Co., Naumburg, 1-308,
12
> plates.
>> ARWIDSSON, I. 1907. Studien über die skandinavischen und arktischen
> Maldaniden nebst Zusammenstellung der übrigen bischer bekannten Arter
diese
> Familie. Zoologisches Jahrbücher, Jena, Supplement 15: 1-308, 12
plates.
>> I'm quite positive about the date 1906, but I can check it again
tonight (I
> have both books at home, found them in antiquarians).
>> In fact, there are several cases of the same work being published
twice (as
> a thesis or a monograph, and in a journal), but lucky enough they
were
> published in the same year the biggest part of the times. There is
also the
> case of reprints of a paper being published before the journal, in
which
> case I suppose the reprint has priority. I have found following
case:
>> LEVINSEN, G.M.R. 1886. Kara-Havets Ledorme (Annulata). In: LÜTKEN,
C.F.
> Dijmphna-Togtets zoologisk-botaniske Udbytte, Bianco Luno, København,
pp.
> 1-17, plate 25.
>> This reprint was apparently available in 1886 (the reprint has a
cover with
> "1886" clearly printed on it), while the book where the paper was
included,
> and which is normally cited as the publication date, seems that was
> available only in 1887:
>> LEVINSEN, G.M.R. 1887. Kara-Havets Ledorme (Annulata). In: LÜTKEN,
C.F.
> Dijmphna-Togtets zoologisk-botaniske Udbytte, J. Hagerup, København,
pp.
> 288-303, plate 25.
>> I hope this helps.
>> Best wishes,
> 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: jueves, 15 de abril de 2010 10:32
> Para: Annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu> Asunto: [Annelida] Arwidsson date
>> 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.
