Dating issues

[JelleZijlstra]

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.

[connorjburgin]

I've noted the Cuvier 1797 change and added to my list of stuff to check/do.

[JelleZijlstra]

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.

[connorjburgin]

Pallas discrepancy noted. It's funny that it's in Dicrostonyx because that's the group I'm working on for my thesis.

[JelleZijlstra]

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:

• Bandicota indica (Bechstein, 1799) is from 1799, not 1800
• Nyctimene (the genus) is attributable to André, 1797:60, not Borkhausen, 1797:86 as traditionally done.
• Vespertilio myosotis André, 1797:46 predates Vespertilio myotis Borkhausen, 1797:80 as the earliest available name for Myotis myotis. I assume it can be disposed of as a nomen oblitum, but that would need to be published.

Relevant references:

• André, C.K. 1797-04-19. Der Zoologe, oder Compendiöse Bibliothek des Wissenswürdigsten aus der Thiergeschichte und allgemeinen Naturkunde. Heft V–VIII. Johann Jacob Gebauer, Eisenach, 416 pp.
• Benda, P. and Mlíkovský, J. 2022. Nomenclatural notes on the lesser horseshoe bat, Rhinolophus hipposideros (Mammalia: Chiroptera). Journal of the National Museum (Prague), Natural History Series 191(1):5-14. doi:10.37520/jnmpnhs.2022.002
• Benda, P., Uvizl, M., Vallo, P., Reiter, A. and Uhrin, M. 2023-02-02. A revision of the Rhinolophus hipposideros group (Chiroptera: Rhinolophidae) with definition of an additional species from the Middle East. Acta Chiropterologica 24(2):269-298. doi:10.3161/15081109ACC2022.24.2.001
• Bechstein, J.M. 1799-10-06. Thomas Pennant's allgemeine Uebersicht der vierfüßigen Thiere. Zweyter Band. Industrie-Comptoir, Weimar, 666 pp.
• Borkhausen, M.B. 1797-09-30. Deutsche Fauna, oder kurzgefaßte Naturgeschichte der Thiere Deutschlands. Erster Theil. Säugthiere und Vögel. Varrentrapp und Werner, Frankfurt am Main, 620 pp.

[JelleZijlstra]

Another group of names:

• Öfversigt af Kongl. Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar (6 differences)
  • 1846 (MDD) vs. 1847 (Hesperomys) (MDD#1004094; Myosorex cafer; original citation: Sundevall (1847); year)
  • 1846 (MDD) vs. 1847 (Hesperomys) (MDD#1004526; Epomophorus wahlbergi; original citation: Sundevall (1847); year)
  • 1846 (MDD) vs. 1847 (Hesperomys) (MDD#1004583; Hipposideros caffer; original citation: Sundevall (1847); year)
  • 1846 (MDD) vs. 1847 (Hesperomys) (MDD#1006243; Nesotragus moschatus; original citation: Sundevall (1847); year)
  • 1846 (MDD) vs. 1847 (Hesperomys) (MDD#1003116; Thallomys paedulcus; original citation: Sundevall (1847); year)
  • 1846 (MDD) vs. 1847 (Hesperomys) (MDD#1002170; Craseomys rufocanus; original citation: Sundevall (1847); year)

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.

[JelleZijlstra]

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:

• Scotorepens greyii was named in 1844, not 1842. MSW3 cites 1842 but no part of the Erebus and Terror was published in 1842. Jackson & Groves (2015) cite Gray (1843) as the author but this is a nomen nudum. The name is available from Erebus and Terror pl. M20 published in December 1844.
• Cephalorhynchus eutropia was named in 1849, not 1846. It appears on pl. W34 of Erebus and Terror, but that plate was only published in 1875. The first published description is https://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/page/12862040 (1849).

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:

• Caperea marginata (Gray, 1847) (not 1846)
• Globicephala macrorhyncha (Gray, 1847) (not 1846)
• Peponocephala electra (Gray, 1847) (not 1846)
• Stenella attenuata (Gray, 1847) (not 1846)

[JelleZijlstra]

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:

• Rousettus madagascariensis Grandidier, 1928:91
  • Bull. Acad. Malgache, n. sen, 11: 91 (for 1928). [From {Mammalia-review (MSW3)}: Bull. Acad. Malgache, N.S., vol. 11, 91] [From {Africa.pdf}: Bull. Acad. Malgache, 11: 91, pi., 4 text-figs, (skull), 1928]
• Nesomys lambertoni Grandidier, 1928:95
  • Bull. Acad. Malgache, n. sen, 11: 95 (for 1928). [From {Mammalia-review (MSW3)}: Bull. Acad. Malgache, Nouv. Ser., vol. 11, 95]
• Cheiromys madagascariensis var. laniger Grandidier, 1930 (= Daubentonia madagascariensis, synonym)
  • Bull. Acad. Malgache, n. sen, 11: 106 (for 1928). [From {Africa.pdf}: Bull. Acad. Malgache, 1: 106, pi., 1930]
• Dasogale Grandidier, 1930:85 (= Setifer, synonym)
  • Bull. Acad. Malgache, for 1928, p. 85, 1930
• Dasogale fontoynonti Grandidier, 1930:85 (= Setifer setosus, synonym)
  • Bull. Acad. Malgache, n. sen, 11: 85 (for 1928). [From {Africa.pdf}: Bull. Acad. Malgache, for 1928, p. 85, 2 pis., 5 text-f., 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:

• Allen, G.M. 1939. A checklist of African mammals. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 83:1-763.
• Helgen, K.M. and McFadden, T.L. 2001. Type specimens of Recent mammals in the Museum of Comparative Zoology. Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology 157(2):93-181.

Conclusion: I am going to treat all of these names as having been published in 1929.