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

[Annelida] Arwidsson date

Sergio Salazar via annelida%40net.bio.net (by savs551216 from hotmail.com)
Tue Apr 20 16:11:39 EST 2010

Caro Jim,
I’m frequently wrong and try to learn from my mistakes. This, however, is not really helping me to avoid making any new mistakes. I just try to stay afloat.
Despite that, I beg your indulgence. I must contradict you. I think your information is incomplete or your premises are wrong.
There were two proposals to improve zoological nomenclature before the advent of any international code. The first one in 1842, involved Charles Darwin and has been regarded as the Strickland Code. You can see the document in:
Now that many of us plan to spend some time in Italy, it would be interesting to know that Italians made a quick response to the Strickland code. In fact, Alessandro Minelli (2008) has explained this response, made in 1842-1843. You can see his paper in:
The second (third?) one was made in 1877, and it involved William Dall, a famous malacologist in the United States. Although I could not find the proposal, the reference was included by Judith Winston in his magnificent book, Describing Species. She included some relevant information for this discussion as well.
In page 29, referring to the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature, you can read that:
“Zoologists date their international code from the first International Congress of Zoology, held in Paris in 1889. Following discussion and committee reports, the first version of the code was adopted by the Fifth International Congress of Zoology (Berlin, 1901), authorized by the Bern Congress in 1904, and published in 1905 in French, English and German as the Règles Internationales de la Nomenclature Zoologique (italics in the original).”
Therefore, there was indeed a code and it was ruling internationally, at least from 1901. Its reading would help us better understand if the dissertation was regarded as a formal publication, or not. If it was regarded as a publication, why bother repeating it? On the other hand, it is known that in legal grounds, no law or act can have retroactive powers. Perhaps it is easier to do in science or in zoological nomenclature, but its implications have to be taken into account. Precisely for that is the provision of the dilemma of strict priority against widespread usage.
Regarding Soderstrom dissertation, 1920, the spionid specialists must have a better idea why it has been regarded as a valid publication for nomenclatural purposes. I don’t know about that. What is self-evident, even for me, is that there was no additional publication to deal with. Therefore, that would make that example quite different from the one dealing with Arwidsson, 1906 vs 1907.
I insist, the dissertation was not a publication, and we must agree on the fact that it was the publication in the Supplement 9, part 1, of the Zool Jahrb, dated 1907, that made it a valid one for nomenclatural purposes.


Date: Tue, 20 Apr 2010 09:41:39 -0400
Subject: Fwd: RE: [Annelida] Arwidsson date
From: jablake9 from gmail.com
To: Annelida from magpie.bio.indiana.edu

---------- Forwarded message ----------
From: James Blake <jablake9 from gmail.com>
Date: Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 10:17 PM
Subject: Re: RE: [Annelida] Arwidsson date
To: Geoff Read <g.read from niwa.co.nz>

Sergio and others, 
Sergio is wrong. The Code clearly specifies that as Mary pointed out: "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")."
Given this, Arwidisson's preprinted version iin 1090 is the correct date of publication.  In 1906 there was no Code of Zoological Nomenclature and no rules regarding a Thesis, Dissertation, or preprints. In fact, at the time, publication of a Dissertation was often considered the formal publication of monographic work. Consider Soderstrom's 1920 monograph on spionids as an example.

On Mon, Apr 19, 2010 at 6:42 PM, Geoff Read <g.read from niwa.co.nz> wrote:

Here is Sergio's early message to me from the weekend. He wishes it to
be circulated.


>>> On 18/04/2010 at 7:27 p.m., Sergio Salazar <savs551216 from hotmail.com>

Dear Mary, Geoff and Joao,

Forgive me. I must disagree about using 1906 for the Arwidsson
monograph. My point is that the year for the publication must be agreed
upon as 1907.

1) Is the dissertation a valid publication (for nomenclatural
purposes)? No. Or at least it was not the same by then. Think about the
interaction with referees and editor, think about the number of copies
made simultaneously. This difference was made clear even then, since the
dissertations had to be submitted for publication. If you have a good
library, please notice that this apparent duplication was made during
about the same period by. i.a. Fauvel, and by Pruvot & Racovitza. In
both cases, the publication retains the same typography and format, but
since they were concentrated in morphology and anatomy, we have not
dealt too much with any problem about priority.

2) Have we been wrong? Not likely. We may have made mistakes or confuse
ourselves; changing numbers in publication years or pages is a frequent
problem in listing references. What about the author himself? As Geoff
has correctly indicated, he used 1907 as the publication date for his
monograph. Did he forget his own dissertation? Certainly not. He just
understood that a dissertation was (is) not a publication. I bet most
papers dealing with maldanids would have included 1907 as the
publication year. If most people have employed 1907, including the
Zoological Record, Nomenclator Zoologicus and our much respected Olga
Hartman’s catalogue, and Kristian Fauchald’s PinkBook, then this
would be the equivalent for widespread usage. Sorry, I have not had the
time to check and list the corresponding publications for each usage.

3) The issue deal with the change of the tetranomen of Arwidsson
species, or the trinomen of his genera and subfamilies. I insist that
the taxa established by Arwidsson must be accompanied by 1907, not by
1906. If one of the now (too) many websites including list of species
names have a different year, then it’s their problem (but not the only
one, indeed), and someone must notify them about it. This change,
however, would not be enough argument as to revert the publication year
by using the dissertation instead of the publication.

4) How could we know about the correct corresponding dates? One means
is to ask in the editorial office for the journal. They might have a
record about the date when the volumes were issued. If the records are
lost or the serial has disappeared, then another option is to ask a
large library about the accession date. The latter would shed some
additional light as well, especially if the dissertation had the same
dissemination than the publication, which I can guarantee did not,
despite the fact I haven’t seen the records of any library. However,
as Geoff said before, do we need to pursue this search? I guess not, or
at least not unless we have some evidence of a similar usage for dates
1906 vs 1907 in the publications dealing with maldanids. I would
anticipate that this will not be the case, but will wait for the

5) Is this an issue of priority? If so, then, please remember that our
code indicates that priority might be set aside, especially if a
widespread usage is shown. First, please take into consideration that
the ICZN has among its principles, one which is relevant to this point

(4) Nomenclatural rules are tools that are designed to provide the
maximum stability compatible with taxonomic freedom. Accordingly, the
Code recognises that the rigid application of the Principle of Priority
may, in certain cases, upset a long-accepted name in its accustomed
meaning through the validation of a little-known, or even
long-forgotten, name. Therefore the rules must enable the Principle of
Priority to be set aside on occasions when its application would be
destructive of stability or universality, or would cause confusion. For
use in such cases the Code contains provisions that modify the automatic
application of the Principle of Priority, whether it concerns the
establishment or precedence of names, the fixation of name-bearing
types, the spelling of a name, or any other matter.

You might think that this refers only to species, but please read
Article 7 of the code, and you will notice that it refers to
publications and nomenclatural acts as well.

Then, forgive me for insisting that we must agree on using 1907 instead
of 1906 for Arwidsson's monograph.

Un abrazo,


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

James A. Blake, Ph.D.
Marine & Coastal Center
AECOM Environment, NE Region
89 Water Street
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Tel: 508-457-7900; FAX: 5008-457-7595
E-Mail: James.Blake from aecom.com and 
jablake9 from gmail.com

James A. Blake, Ph.D.
Marine & Coastal Center
AECOM Environment, NE Region
89 Water Street
Woods Hole, Massachusetts 02543
Tel: 508-457-7900; FAX: 5008-457-7595
E-Mail: James.Blake from aecom.com and 
jablake9 from gmail.com
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/attachments/20100420/f01f4817/attachment.html

More information about the Annelida mailing list

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