Please send only one message to the list, then check at the web archive
if it doesn't arrive back to you fast enough for you.
Everyone got three of Alexander's.
It is easy to see if your message has arrived at the list, even if you
don't get a copy.
See http://www.bio.net/bionet/mm/annelida/2011-April/thread.html
I will take action if there's a repeat occurrence.
Now to the tricky question.
If interested this page in Morch can be seen online at:
http://www.archive.org/stream/naturhistoriskti01copeuoft#page/430/mode/2up
Bush is wrong with the 1822 year. Morch doesn't cite Otto Fabricius,
1822 (actually the year Fabricius died!). What he cites is "Cat. 1822.
n. 1094.", thus an unidentified specimen catalogue or list.
Mostly Morch identifies a person or institute with his references to
"cat.", and here he doesn't, so perhaps it's his own catalogue. Note he
indicates he collected his own specimen in Greenland.
Fabricius (1780:381) described a worm under the name Serpula glomerata
Linnaeus, and Morch (1863) rewords that description under the name
Spirorbis verruca Fabr., and indicates the description came from Fauna
Groenlandica.
I don't know what the undated Fabricius Mss. 2 is, but Morch refers to
it a lot. As it is unpublished I suggest it has no status for taxonomy.
Personally I'd attribute the species solely to Morch. That way we won't
get confused in the future. Hartman catalogue uses Fabricius in Morch,
so there's an authoritative indication, but these 'in' authorships
should be carefully considered. Merely paraphrasing someone else's words
when they don't know about it (being dead already) isn't an 'in' when we
examine it years later. Possibly it's well-intentioned to indicate later
the suspected or obvious origin, but it's a complication I can do
without.
Incidentally WoRMS wrongly says Serpula verruca was published by
Fabricius in 1780. No such name was published therein. We will make
corrections.
Geoff
>>> On 15/04/2011 at 12:35 a.m., Alexander Rzhavsky <ubyb from mail.ru>
wrote:
> Dear all,
> could anybody clearify what is "Fabricius, 1822" cited by Morch, 1863
on the
> page 431 as
> Serpula verruca Vorteroret Fab. Mss. 2. p. 186. n. 206.
> --------- " ------- Cat. 1822. n. 1094.
>> And by Bush, 1905 on the pages 247 and 264 without any references?
>> Does it any unpublished manuscript or catalogue? Does it valid for
year of
> new species description itself - Spirorbis verruca (Fabricius 1822)
or it
> should be should be indicated as Spirorbis verruca (Fabricius in
Morch,
> 1863). It is absent from Fauchald's "Paryrus"
>> Sincerely yours
> Alexander V. Rzhavsky
>http://www.sevin.ru/laboratories/Marine_Invertebrates/rzhavsky.html
Please consider the environment before printing this email.
NIWA is the trading name of the National Institute of Water &
Atmospheric Research Ltd.
