IUBio Biosequences .. Software .. Molbio soft .. Network News .. FTP

[Annelida] Arwidsson date

gambimc from szn.it via annelida%40net.bio.net (by gambimc from szn.it)
Mon Apr 19 15:24:47 EST 2010


Dears annelidians
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  
1984-1985...
so I know that it is not orthodox, but it should be used the case of  
Arwidsson?
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.
>
> Kristian
>
> 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
> 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?
>
> 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<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.




More information about the Annelida mailing list

Send comments to us at biosci-help [At] net.bio.net