more Thunberg, 1791

[Ron Gatrelle]

----- Original Message -----
From: "Eric or Pat Metzler" <spruance at infinet.com>
Subject: Re: Thunberg, 1791


> Ron Gatrelle wrote:
>
> snip
> 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?

Eric wrote:
> I recommend that some research be done before wading in too deep with
> conclusions.

This is what I just said... "It is still inclusive."

> There is no wonder how Thumberg's name got there.

My wording was not clear and was thus misleading.  The "there" I was
referring to was not the publication - that is understood.  The "there" is
as author of the names _in subsequent literature_ IF Becklin was clearly
listed as the author of both the book [papers] and the names in the
original.

> It is not a book.  It is a series of 9 or so issues in a serial
> publication entitled "D.D dissertatio entomologica sistens Insecta
> Svecica, quroum partem primam, cons. exper. facult. med. upsal."
> praeside Carol. P. Thunberg.  1784 - 1795.
>
> The issue in question is "...Partem Secundem...Praeside Car. P.
> Thunberg...Publico Examini Subjicit Petrus Ericus Becklin,..."  The
> title page is clear - no one overlooked Becklin's name.

My Latin is non existent.  But this looks to me like Thunberg published
information totally compiled by Becklin.  This is all addressed in Article
50.

> An examination of the publication is required before other avenues of
> research can be undertaken.

Full circle.  As I have been saying it all goes to the OD.  No, no other
research is needed.  In fact, if the correct author of the names is
Becklin, it is the post OD literature etc. that has screwed this issue of
authorship up.  If the 1791 paper meets the ICZN rules as a valid
publicaton, and the names are thus validly published and available names
from  _that_ 1791 publication, then the only issue is who in the OD
specifically authored each specific name.

> Much other information is required before
> the authorship can be determined with accuracy.  Perhaps there is some
> correspondence, perhaps there are other articles, possibly in other
> journals that clarify the authorship.  There are many possibilities
> before one jumps to any conclusion about why authorities ignored
> Becklin's name in favor of Thunberg.

Eric, I assume you have a copy of the Vol. 4 code (which is the only code
version that counts).  Please tell us how - per the code (give Article and
number) correspondence or papers post the 1791 OD would affect the
authorship.

Sunny 80 degree cheers from Charleston
Ron


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

   For subscription and related information about LEPS-L visit:

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