Open JelleZijlstra opened 1 year ago
I've noted the Cuvier 1797 change and added to my list of stuff to check/do.
Another one: Pallas, P.S. 1779. Novae species quadrupedum e glirium ordine cum illustrationibus variis complurium ex hoc ordine animalium. Wolfgang Walther, 388 pp.
According to Sherborn (1891, Sherborn, C.D. 1891. Dates of the Parts of P. S. Pallas's 'Icones Insect. p. Ross. Sibir.' and 'Nov. spec. Quadr. Glirium,'. Annals and Magazine of Natural History (6)7(38):236. https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/25164717 ) this was published in two parts: pp. 1-70 in 1778 and 71-388 in 1779. You mostly got this right already but I noticed one discrepancy in the MDD: Dicrostonyx torquatus should be 1779, not 1778.
Pallas discrepancy noted. It's funny that it's in Dicrostonyx because that's the group I'm working on for my thesis.
Here's some fun ones. You mentioned in an email that you received a paper about Rhinolophus hipposideros but couldn't find it online yet. It's now up on BioOne, apparently published last week (Benda et al., 2023). It splits Rhinolophus midas into a separate species, which I'm planning to accept. But it also references another paper I missed, Benda & Mlíkovský (2022).
This argues that Rhinolophus hipposideros dates from André (1797), not Borkhausen (1797), which is probably correct (I haven't waded through the 18th-century sales catalogs to confirm). In addition, they show that Bechstein (1799), which was thought to have been published in 1800, is actually from 1799.
I found that this has a few other consequences that they don't call out:
Relevant references:
Another group of names:
These were all published in this volume: https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/20230#page/10/mode/1up . It is for the year 1846 but has the date 1847 on the cover, so we should assume 1847 as the year of publication in the absence of evidence to the contrary. (It is possible that some parts of the volume were published earlier, but I haven't seen concrete evidence.)
You already have some other names published in the same article as 1847 (e.g., Dasymys incomtus, Helogale parvula). They should all be 1847.
I took a detailed look at the Zoology of the Erebus and Terror, which has a number of new species descriptions by J.E. Gray. It's a very confusing work because there was a thirty-year gap between the publication of the first and last parts, and many references get the dates wrong. I wrote up a detailed account here: https://github.com/JelleZijlstra/taxonomy/blob/master/docs/biblio/erebus-terror.md.
We'll run into this more when comparing years of publication for names, but these are the implications relevant to species currently considered valid:
A bit less definitely, it appears that the whale part of the work ("On the cetaceous animals") was published in January 1847, not 1846 as generally assumed. This chapter introduced numerous new names, among which the following are currently considered valid:
Another group. I noticed that among several names published in volume 11 of the Bulletin de l'Académie malgache, I had some listed as 1928 and others as 1930:
Fortunately, this volume is on Google Books at https://books.google.nl/books?id=GIYIAAAAIAAJ&pg=RA4-PA95&lpg=RA4-PA95&dq=Description+d%27une+%22nouvelle+esp%C3%A8ce+de+Nesomys,+le+N.+lambertoni%22,+G.+Grand&source=bl&ots=Xnf8JKsHzx&sig=ACfU3U2zRxV06YqcX_XArSmmEPlwFlD1_Q&hl=en&sa=X&ved=2ahUKEwjyopjgs-b_AhVZlGoFHWOVDPsQ6AF6BAgCEAM#v=onepage&q=Description%20d'une%20%22nouvelle%20esp%C3%A8ce%20de%20Nesomys%2C%20le%20N.%20lambertoni%22%2C%20G.%20Grand&f=false. Google Books is kind of hard to navigate sometimes, but if you download the PDF (for volumes 9-12), the table of contents for volume 11 is at p. 479 and the title page of is at p. 313. The volume is for the year 1928, but it bears the date 1929 on the title page, indicating that it was published in 1929. (This seems to have been the general practice for this journal: each volume was published the year after the year it covered.)
However, for some of these names I have 1930. This seems to go back to Allen (1939) and Helgen and McFadden (2001), but they don't say why they think the volume was published in 1930, so I'm going to disregard this claim unless there is stronger evidence to back it up.
The volume also contains the description of a new bird species that is still considered valid, Porzana olivieri (https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Sakalava_rail), and all the online sources I checked date it to 1929 too.
References:
Conclusion: I am going to treat all of these names as having been published in 1929.
In between the taxonomic comparisons I've been doing some work validating publication dates in my database. I'll post here when I find something where the MDD may require a change. To start with:
Cuvier's Tableau élémentaire
Cuvier, G. 1797. Tableau élémentaire de l'histoire naturelle des animaux. Baudouin, 710 pp.
This is usually listed as 1798, but Jackson & Groves (2015) cite it as 1797. Their source is a bibliographic notice by Roux (1797). I verified the source at https://gallica.bnf.fr/ark:/12148/bpt6k5481905n/f1.item# . It is a bibliographic magazine, published on 24 December 1797, that lists the Tableau élémentaire, proving that the book must have been published by then.
Among species currently considered valid, this affects Hemicentetes semispinosus.