after a long discussion about the Arwidsson thesis and publication,
may I suggest a possible practical, operational solution that is to
use the double dates! 1906-1907...
I have seen this use in case of Journals that have jumped one year or
that have melted two years in one, so the publication is with a double
dates, I have personally a paper which is published in Oebalia
so I know that it is not orthodox, but it should be used the case of
However as for the species auhtority I don't know if the double dates
would be accepted by the code...
Sorry to be naive...
the best to all of you,
Maria Cristina (or Cristina Maria...it does not changes here I am)
Citando "Fauchald, Kristian" <FAUCHALD from si.edu>:
> 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
> 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:
> 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<mailto:Annelida from net.bio.net>
> Help/archive: http://www.bio.net/biomail/listinfo/annelida> Resources: http://www.annelida.net<http://www.annelida.net/>
This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.