Sorry Sergio,
Those earlier "codes"have no status. The first International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature was published in 1961. Therefore sources of
publication prior to 1961 were not covered by any sort of code that was a
concensus of an international committee. In fact the restriction on a using
a Thesis or Dissertation was first introduced in the 1961 Code and I see
restated in the 3rd Edition in 1985 and had to do with documents that were
not formerly distributed; these were typically type written documents, such
as my own Dissertation in 1969 (typed on an electric typewriter) and that
was only archived in a University Library and not available for wide
distribution. This is not the case of Arwidisson's or Soederstroem's
dissertations which were clearly type set and avaialble for distribution.
Arwidsson (1906), is therefore, the correct date of publication; the latest
code considers preprints of journal articles before 2000 as valid
publications, as Mary had earlier stated. There is really no rebuttal to
this fact.
Jim
On Tue, Apr 20, 2010 at 5:11 PM, Sergio Salazar <savs551216 from hotmail.com>wrote:
> 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:
>>>>>http://darwin-online.org.uk/content/frameset?viewtype=text&itemID=F1661a&keywords=darwin+on+nomenclature+committee&pageseq=1>>>> 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:
>>>>http://www.mapress.com/zootaxa/2008/f/zt01950p038.pdf>>>> 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.
>>>> Ciao,
>>>> Sergio
>>> ------------------------------
> 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> CC:
>>>> ---------- 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.
>> Jim
>> 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.
>> Geoff
>> >>> On 18/04/2010 at 7:27 p.m., Sergio Salazar <savs551216 from hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> 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
> evidence.
>> 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
> (http://www.nhm.ac.uk/hosted-sites/iczn/code/):
>> (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,
>> Sergio
>>>>> 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>
--
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/d112f391/attachment.html
