Thank you, Mary Petersen, for pointing out the rules of publication! I have seen a copy of the paper in question with the date of the dissertation on it; but cannot now remember where I saw it, but it was 1906, rather than 1907, so I agree with Mary that the date for this paper must be 1906, rather than 1907, sorry, you all.
From: annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu [mailto:annelida-bounces from oat.bio.indiana.edu] On Behalf Of Mary Petersen
Sent: Saturday, April 17, 2010 5:06 AM
To: Geoff Read
Cc: Annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu
Subject: Re: [Annelida] Arwidsson date
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 E. Petersen
polychaete1 from gmail.com<mailto:polychaete1 from gmail.com>
On Thu, Apr 15, 2010 at 4:31 AM, Geoff Read <g.read from niwa.co.nz<mailto:g.read from niwa.co.nz>> wrote:
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<mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...