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

[Annelida] Arwidsson date

Sergio Salazar via annelida%40net.bio.net (by savs551216 from hotmail.com)
Mon Apr 19 17:30:01 EST 2010

Dear Mary and Kristian,


I have sent Geoff some additional ideas to reject the use of 1906 instead of 1907 for the publication of Arwidsson monograph, not for his dissertation or thesis. Hope he manages to forward them. Here are some other ideas dealing with the fact that a dissertation is not a publication and that 1907 has been more widely cited than 1906, including the citations for the dissertation.


The codes have tried to cope with the publishing facilities of the times. As you know, a discussion is now moving towards accepting publications on line. Some of you might remember that before internet became so widespread as today, and especially before pdfs or online publications, we had another, quite different set of rules.


I have regretted having lost my photocopy of the Regles of 1900, which might have been in some use while Arwiddson was doing his monograph. Looking at those rules, it would help us better understand why there was apparently a duplicated publication, and to understand if the dissertation was really regarded as a publication. Regretfully, it is not the same (If anyone out there has a copy, a pdf would be very useful for this discussion. Thanks in advance).


During many years, dissertations were regarded as gray literature, especially because they were difficult to find, in relation to traditional serials. Even after the advent of such companies like the US Dissertations Abstracts International, obtaining photocopies of dissertations was difficult, and expensive.


Thus, in the previous and current edition of the Code (parenthesis for the current edition), Art. 8, section a, on what criteria must be met for a publication, the number 3 indicated:


 "it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneosly obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical (and durable) copies." 


Thus, although we might become dizzy trying to understand how many copies mean "numerous identical copies", the standard for publications might help. Modest current journals have 500-1000 copies per issue/volume. Therefore, I'm sure almost nobody could pay from his pocket, or from institutional funds, such a modest number of copies for any dissertation.


Another interesting piece in the last edition was stated in section 11, of Article 9. What does not constitute publication. This states:


"deposit of a document (e.g., a thesis) in a collection of documents, a library, or other archive." 


The new edition was modified and slightly diluted. Thus, now we must see sections 7 and 9, but the word thesis has dissappeared. I regret these correct indications were cancelled from the current edition, and I especially regret that we are failing to understand that a dissertation is not a publication, or at least not for nomenclatural purposes.


On the other hand, as I stated in the previous message to Geoff, this seems to deal with priority since the dissertation is being regarded as a valid publication. This is not the case, but even if it were, we might find some light in the code itself. It is true that this is one of the basic principles in the code. However, it is also true that it is not expected to be carried out to extreme or absolute levels, especially if in so doing, we move against the widespread usage. This is, I suspect, what is in the core of this discussion. Therefore, I hope you forgive me but I will show below that most publications have employed the monograph date as 1907, while 1906 is the date for the printing of the dissertation and sometimes used for the same publication as follows (based upon my MALD folder):


Arwidsson 1906, dissertation (1 citation, besides Fauvel's double one)

  Bellan & Reys 1967.


Arwidsson 1906, Suppl. 9 (8 citations, besides Fauvel's double one)

  Buzhinskaja 1995, Day 1967, Fauvel, 1927, Hartmann-Schröder 1971, 1996, Imajima & Shiraki 1982, Uschakov, 1955, Wesenberg-Lund 1948.


Arwidsson 1907, Suppl. 9 (18 citations)

  Arwidsson 1922 (sounds familiar?), Banse 1981, de Assis et al. 2007a, 2007b, 2010, Fauvel 1953, Garwood 2007, Gillet 1989, Jiménez-Cueto & SV 1997, Lana 1983, Light 1974, 1991, Mackie & Gobin 1993, Mangum 1962, 1966, Pilgrim 1977, Rouse 1990, SV 1991.


Last, but not least. There is no double year in the cover of the publication of the monograph in Zool Jahrb. Suppl. 9. It only has 1907 on the bottom, but the end of the foreword has June 1906, correct. However, this cannot be taken as the publication date. Rather, this is the date for ending the prologue.


By the way, and this is a small point to Maria Cristina Gambi. The double year we seldom see in journals cover, do not refer to the publication date. This is to indicate that the volume or double volume, refers to the years corresponding to the number(s) of the volume(s). The publishing date must be a single year, or even better, a month and a year.


Have fun,





From: FAUCHALD from si.edu
To: polychaete1 from gmail.com; g.read from niwa.co.nz
Date: Mon, 19 Apr 2010 11:42:29 -0400
Subject: RE: [Annelida] Arwidsson date
CC: Annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.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 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



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?



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/20100419/aed5707b/attachment.html

More information about the Annelida mailing list

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