Thunberg, 1791

[Ron Gatrelle]

Eric Metzler wrote:
>
> snip
>
> A great many other items are needed in addition to the publication and
> the code.  Contemporary correspondence, knowledge of contemporary
> publication policies, a familiarlity with other literature which
> clarifies or contributes to basic knowledge about this publication, and
> much other research,

This sounds good but is incorrect as applied to this specific case.  Eric,
you are correct in the spirit behind this statement -- there are many
places to look and things that need to be known in the broad spectrum of
tracking down names, authors, taxa (synonymy), new descriptions (is  X
already described someplace) etc.  But with the names attribution to
Thunberg and/or Becklin,  Norbert is past all those preliminary steps and
has now come to where the rubber meets the road.   All he needs to known at
this point is what is written in the OD.   The code (Vol. 4 - Jan. 1, 2000)
is clear, and once the OD info is known the case is settled.  This is a
little difficult for me here as I will come across pretty uppity to some.
But, I am no slouch when it comes to the Code.  People who have never
worked with me on Code matters just have no point of reference.  I work
with people on Code matters all the time.  Hummmm... this is a tough
position to be in.  I should just let it (the code and I) drop.

> much other research, such as used to be done by the greats F. Martin
> Brown and Cyril F. dos Passos, should be consulted before one
> immediately drops Thunberg in favor of Becklin. If it were only a matter
> of the title page and code, Becklin would be the author of record right
> now.

Have you seen this?  It sounds like you have.

> Messages which cast aspersions on the Emmels should be posted under a
> different subject line.

I take great exception to this statement and was very taken back by it when
I read it.  Webster's:  "aspersion: derogatory, malicious, or damaging
remark."  This is a pretty serious thing you have accused me of.  I said in
my post they were "expert" lepidopterist -- in fact the whole reason I used
them in the example is because they are _mega_ butterfly experts.  The
point was that being an expert in one area does not make one an expert in
another -- specifically, the workings of the International Code of
Zoological Nomenclature -- or mean that every action one takes is always in
line with the code.   It is a fact that in the two cases I have looked at,
their attribution of authorship is incorrect.   This was a simple example
(along with Smith and Abbot) to show 1) how easily nomenclature can be
presented contrary to the code - which is why this is something that has
been (as is)  occurring all the time in the literature, and 2) an example
(Abbot/Smith) that might be a parallel to the Thunberg/ Becklin situation.

Ron Gatrelle


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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