Hi all,
I've seen Sergio's comments on the Code, while I've been writing this.
If you want to check them out the Règles are reprinted in:
Schenk, E.T.; McMasters, J.H.; Keen, A.M.; Muller, S.W. (1956).
Procedures in taxonomy. Including a reprint in translation of the Règles
internationales de la nomenclature zoölogique (International code of
zoological nomenclature). With Titles and Notes on the Opinions Rendered
to the Present Date (1907 to 1956). 3rd , enl. Stanford University
Press, Stanford, Calif,. 119 p.
The code of that time is very short and there seems to be nothing there
on what does not constitute a publication. Arwidsson would not have been
acting against it. But today we don't have to look back at old codes to
make a decision. The current code rules are always the ones to use.
Yes to Jim, Söderström's dissertation is a good non-controversial
example from the same university a few years later. He only published
his thesis work once, in his dissertation. Nine new species are
recognised. The dissertation is dated 1920 and the defense was in May
1920.
Given the debate over this I also asked the ICZN list about the two
Arwidsson publications. The points I take away from the responses are
that it is legitimate and perhaps best to accept a printed date unless
there is definite reason not to, and Arwidsson's Swedish thesis version
can be recognised as published under the Code. The date problem is less
fixed and, for the purposes of comparing the timing of taxonomic acts
another publication will have to be compared in detail, bearing in mind
Arwidsson could be regarded as appearing as late as 2 February 1907. But
no later. If a case arises it probably will have to go to the ICZN
Commision for a decision.
On the topic of Swedish dissertations I was told: "Swedish PhD
dissertations are always printed in a freely available edition with
numerous identical simultaneously produced copies. [...] In the past,
the dissertation used to be a monograph appearing first as the
dissertation, and potentially never published again."
I am going to use the Upsala publication as the source for Arwidsson's
thesis maldanids. I will use the date of 1906. While the option to still
use 1907 is available, personally I believe late 1906 is a reasonable
placement because of the 1906 on the cover page. I won't mind if others
still use 1907, or 1907 and the Zoologische Jahrbücher source for
routine mentions of Arwidsson taxa, but I don't think the evidence
supports them in that view. This is rather the reverse of where I
expected to be when I started. Further debate may continue.
Geoff
>>> On 21/04/2010 at 1:41 a.m., James Blake <jablake9 from gmail.com>
wrote:
> [...] 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.
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &
Atmospheric Research Ltd.
