Thunberg, 1791

[Ron Gatrelle]

If it is clear from the original publication that one particular person is
responsible for _a particular_  name or nomenclatural act, then the
authorship goes to that person.  If it is not clear then the author of the
name or nomenclatural act is the author of the work. That is the basic ICZN
rule.

It is not infrequent to find that any number of people who have published
any number of various types of publications (from new combinations to
checklists) have not known what they should have about the International
Code of Zoological Nomenclature rules -- either by faulty interpretation or
a direct lack of knowledge.

I have just scratched the surface of the Western Systematics book, 1998,
and the first two names I have checked out have shown that one was
attributed to the wrong author and the second is likely the same type of
error.  (This was discussed on the TILS-leps-talk  Yahoo group.)

Years ago one would see species attributed to Abbot & Smith (1797).  This
was because the species paintings and life history accounts were clearly
provided by John Abbot and attributed to him.   Over the years this has
been corrected and the names are only attributed to J. E. Smith because
Smith is the one who gave the names.  This might seem unfair to Abbot as he
did "all the field work" and Smith just provided the names in compiling and
editing Abbot's information .  However, such is the nature of the rules of
nomenclature.  The names (authorship) goes to the one(s) who produced the
nomenclatural act.

I have given two examples here.  The first is where expert lepidopterists
T. Emmel,  J. Emmel and Mattoon demonstrated they are not experts in the
application (fine points at least) of the Code.  The second is where
authorship goes to a person (Smith) who was little more than an editor,
while the researcher is left in the cold as he is only treated as a
"contributor" as his  name was not mentioned in fulfillment of the ICZN
rules.   It is not surprising at all if a whole bunch of names (those
attributed to Thunberg) have been repetitiously duplicated in error while
the proper attribution may well belong to Becklin.  On the other hand, even
though Becklin's name is mentioned (much like Abbot's) if it is clear that
Thunberg authored the names then by the code the names (nomenclatural acts)
are attributed to Thunberg. See Article 50 and points.   There are various
exceptions but none of them would seem to apply on the basis of the
information Norbert provided. This looks like a straight up case.

I guess I should give my verdict based on Eirc's (Metzler's) info.  It is
still inclusive.  It could be that the "authorship" of the book was
Becklin's but the "authorship" in the text coined by Thunberg.  Or, Becklin
was the author of both the book and the names.  If this latter situation is
the case, then one is left to wonder how Thunberg's name ever got in there
at all?

Ron Gatrelle


----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric or Pat Metzler" <spruance at infinet.com>
To: <leps-l at lists.yale.edu>
Sent: Wednesday, November 28, 2001 8:05 PM
Subject: Re: Thunberg, 1791


> Norbert,
>
> You are coming up with some good ones.
>
> The title page says that Petrus Ericus Becklin was the author of Insecta
> Svecica part 2, 1791.  Each of the parts has a different author.
> Certainly the bibliographers have known for a long time about this
> authorship, so there must be some reason why the names in this part are
> attributed to Thunberg.  You might write to Pamela Gilbert at the
> British Museum library to find out why Thunberg is credited with
> authorship for the names in the part authored by Becklin.  Maybe
> Thunberg wrote all the parts in spite of what it says on the individual
> title pages.
>
> BTW, Becklin signed his works "Eric Becklin"  With a name like that he
> can't be all wrong.
>
> So, Norbert, please share with us what you discover.  You may be onto
> something that will change all the literature, butterflies and moths
alike.
>
> Cheers from Columbus Ohio where it is raining today, but not yet too
cold.
>
> Eric
>
>
> Kondla, Norbert FOR:EX wrote:
>
> > Well of all the strange things --- browsing on the web it has come to
my
> > attention that the correct authorship of a number of butterfly species
> > attributed to Thunberg, 1791 may actually belong to Becklin, 1791.  It
> > appears that C.P. Thunberg was merely the editor of "Dissertatio
> > entomologica sistens insecta Svecica" and Becklin was the actual author
of
> > the butterfly names.  Naturally this is worth following up to see which
is
> > correct. Does anyone have access to this ancient publication ?? If so
please
> > have a look and drop me a line to explain which authorship is correct
and
> > why. Thank you.
> >
> > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~
> > Norbert Kondla  P.Biol., RPBio.
> > Ministry of Sustainable Resource Management
> > 845 Columbia Avenue, Castlegar, British Columbia V1N 1H3
> > Phone 250-365-8610
> > Mailto:Norbert.Kondla at gems3.gov.bc.ca
> > http://www.env.gov.bc.ca



 
 ------------------------------------------------------------ 

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

   http://www.peabody.yale.edu/other/lepsl