S.Afr.Q.J. South African Quarterly Journal. Edited at the South African Institution. Cape Town 1-3 1829-35 First Series No. I Oct. 1829-Jan. 1830 No. II Jan. 1830-Apr. 1830 No. II Jan. 1830-Apr. 1830 No. III Apr. 1830-Jly 1830 No. IV Jly 1830-Sep. 1830 No. V Oct. 1831: "Published by George Grieg, Keizerstgracht; 1832" Second Series No.1 Oct. to Dec., 1833. Published in monthly parts. (i, ii, iii). No.2 Jan. to Mar., 1834. Part i., 1834, part. iii (err. pro ii), iii. No.3 Apr. to Jun. No.4 Jly to Sep.
SarawakMus.J. Sarawak Museum Journal
Sci.Rep.WhalesResearchInst. The Scientific reports of the Whales Research Institute
Smiths.Misc.Coll. Smithsonian Miscellaneous Collections 1862-> Washington, D.C.
Spic.Zool.[Gray,JE] Spicilegia zoologica : original figures and short systematic descriptions of new and unfigured animals. Gray, John Edward 1828 29 cm London pp.8
Symb.Phys.Mamm Symbolae Physicae, seu icones et descriptiones corporum naturalium novorum aut minus cognitorum quae ex itin eribus per Libyam Aegyptum Nubiam Dongolam Syrian Arabiam et Habessianiam publico institutis sumptu Friedrich Guilelmi Hemprich et christiani Godofredi Ehrenberg Medicinae et Chirurgiae Doctorum... Avium deca I Ehrenberg, CG 1828-45 folio Berlin Zimmer (from Cat Lib Br Mus (NH) ) says: sigs a & b and all plates pub. 1828 all others (sigs. c-gg) appeared in 1833 I interp. that all entries listed "fol." is equvalent to "sig." Bob Dowsett writes (2003.06.06): [Begin Dowswett 2003.06.06] 'You will be interested to know that the NHM at Tring has a set of all 20 plates, i.e. including those from the Decas secunda. Alison Harding has most kindly confirmed that they hold the following: "1) The first one has a title page which states it is 'Decas Prima' and someone has added in pen 'et unica!'. At the bottom of the title page in pen has been added 'Fol. a and b and all plates appeared in 1828, the rest in 1833'. (I do not know who wrote these annotations). This volume has plates 1 to 10 only. 2) The other copy has no title page but has a handwritten 'title' - 'Symbolae Physicae seu Icones et Descriptiones corporum Naturalium Novorum aut Minus Cognitorum quae ex itineribus per Libyam Aegyptium Nubiam, Dongalam, Syriam, Arabiam et Haberssiniam publicio instituto sumptu. Hemprich et Ehrenberg. Pars Zooligica I. Berolini ex Ifficina Academica 1828' It has all 20 plates" She gives me a list of plates XI-XX which corresponds exactly to that supplied by the bookseller. This is presumably where Sclater got his information from, and I am waiting to know whether there are also sets elsewhere (e.g. AMNH, Berlin or Stuttgart). If it is agreed (as I think is the case) that this work was indeed distributed (despite the booksellers' claim to the contrary) then we have earlier descriptions for two Afrotropical taxa: Centropus superciliosus (pl. XI) Estrilda rufibarba (pl. XIII). In neither case do the names change, but the authors become: Hemprich & Ehrenberg (1829) rather than Hemprich & Ehrenberg (1833), and Cabanis (1850) respectively. [End Dowsett 2003.06.06] Regarding the posited date of 1829, contra 1828, Dowsett's thinking as of 2003.06.07 is: [Begin part of Dowsett 2003.06.07] 'The two people to have used this reference for Centropus superciliosus gave different years: 1828 in W.L. Sclater's Syst. Av., and 1833 in Chapin's Bds of the Belgian Congo. 1829 is the date on the copy Steven's bookseller has on hand. That copy is clearly Decas secunda, whereas one notes the title of the NHM volume containing the full set of 20 plates is somewhat different. Had XI-XX been distributed in 1828 (as were the first 10 plates) then one might have thought people aware of the first 10 would know of the 2nd batch (which clearly most people didn't). So I think the choice is between a "certain" 1829 and a less so 1828, and I would go for the later date. What do others think? As for the different titles, the NHM copy being handwritten I don't think we can be sure it is what covered the plates when distributed, rather than one [that] someone took to be the composite title of the whole work.' [End Dowsett 2003.06.07] Steven Gregory is currently the primary investigator of this mystery and his explanations are: [Begin S.G. 2003.06.08.001] "Bob appears to have introduced you to this particular loop without explaining the background. Edward and I had a 'lively' discussion concerning the correct authorship of the new names introduced by the Symbolae Physicae. I argued that Zimmer was correct in stating that '...all of which must be credited to Ehrenberg although most of them are initialled "H. et E." in the text.' It turns out that all those initialled "E." alone are named 'hemprichi'. As well as the obvious fact of Hemprich's death in 1825 there are some more subtle clues such as: 1). The portion of the title page dealing with authorship translates as 'establishing publication at the expense [publico institutis sumptu] of F.G.Hemprich & C.G.Ehrenberg', but that it was 'magnificently and expensively published by the surviving [superstes] Dr. C.G.Ehrenberg'. And 2). The names are introduced exclusively as footnotes, supporting my contention that while Hemprich will have made extensive field notes later to be incorporated into the text, he was unlikely to have named species 'on the spot' (there were 34,000 zoological specimens collected!) and that the names, therefore, were inserted by Ehrenberg prior to publication, and cited Art. 50.1 and Recommendation 50A of the ICZN in support. This is a condensation of a far larger correspondence between just the two of us, the upshot of which is that we appear to agree to differ on this subject, he is happy with H. & E. in E., and I with E. in H. & E. !!! It was at this point, after a lot of digging around into this subject, that I found that W.L.Sclater cited 'fol. R, pl. xi,' for Centropus superciliosus, a plate which should not exist, and discovered a set of plates for sale by Antiquariaat Melchior purporting to be the Decas Secunda, plates XI-XX. I attach here the e-mail concerning the names of these plates, and will continue with an e-mail attaching scans of the two most interesting plates. Each plates has in top left the text: "Zoologica I. Aves" and in top right the plate number. On bottom right is the artist name (usually F. Burde), sometimes on bottom left the engravers name.Text to the plates:
XI. Centropus Superciliofus adultis Arabia felix XII Centropus Superciliofus juvenis Arabia A. Pes et rostrum adulti. B. idem juvenis. XIII Fringilla 1 carduelis rufibarba 2 ------------ frenata 3 ------------ effrenata ex Arabia meridionalis XIV Vultur eulophus Ex Habesfinia XV Pterocles gulattus 1. mas 2. Femina ex Aegypti et Nubia desertis. 3. Femina e desertis Sinai ticis Arabiae. 4. Ova ejustdem e Nubia. I. Ova ptedoris senegalensis. II Ova Pteroclis bicintii XVI Pterocles coronatus 1. mas 2. Femina e Nubia II. Femina ex Arabia petraea A. Ovia Nubii XVII Ibis religiosa I.Habefsinica maris rubri, mas adulta II. Aethiopica nili, mas juvenis. III ovum. XVIII Ibis Hemprichii Ex Arabia XIX Falco Falco schistaceus 1. Mas 2. Femina 3. Ovum Ex insula Barcan Maris rubri XX Corvus Stridens Mas Libanon [End S.G. 2003.06.08.001] [Begin S.G. 2003.06.08.002] From available evidence so far a rough chronology would be: 1820-25 Expedition to North Africa and the Middle East 1825 Death of F.W.Hemprich in the field from malaria (no day or month found), return of C.G.Ehrenberg with 34,000 zoological specimens. 1828 Start of publication of Symbolae Physicae (1828-1845 et supra) Title Subtitle Text folios a and b (4 ll. or 8 pp). Plates I-X (birds) 1829 Plates XI-XX (birds) 1833 Text half-folios c-i, k-u, x-z and aa-gg (28 ll or 56 pp). The non-ornithological part of the work continued from this point. Although referred to variously as 'signatures' and 'folios', strictly speaking the first two parts (a and b) are superroyal folios, that is superroyal sheets folded once, and the latter parts (c-gg) superroyal half-folios, that is single leaves of the same size. I must say that it seems entirely plausible that texts were released between 1829 and 1833, and not 'all at once' as the bibliographers have it, but that this is probably now beyond any investigation unless a library somewhere has retained proof of receipt. Bob Dowsett has taken up the running in this area as he was the most enthused by my 'discovery'. As well as at the NHM, I believe a complete set resides in Berlin, although I'm unsure which institution as the internet description merely states 'Zoological Library', [End S.G. 2003.06.08.002] Hemprich died in the field during their labors, Zimmer in attributed all taxa to Ehrenberg. I have interpreted ICZN 50.1 (1999) to indicate that both authors should stand for the authority but may change this yet again. (2003.06.08).
Syn.Mamm. Synopsis mammalium. Fischer, Johann Baptist 1829 21cm Stuttgart
Syn.Vert.Syst. Synopsis vertebratorum systematis societati linnaeana exhibiti die septema, Nov. 1837. Bonaparte, Charles Lucien Jules Laurent 1837 8vo pp.30
Syst.Nat. Systema Naturae per Regna Tria Naturae, Secundum Classes, Ordines, Genera, Species, Cum Characteribus, Differentiis, Synonymis, Locis. Linneai, Caroli (Carl Linnaeus) Editio decima, Reformata Tomus I 1758 8vo pp. 4+824 [ Note 1: I remain interested and confused by the orthography of the type locality representations with regard to the use of italics. In many instances italics seem to be used to describe habitats, as opposed to locations. e.g. p.205 under Gecko: "Habitat in Indiis, frequens etiam in domibus." (trans. "Lives in the Indies, often even in homes.") However, contrast p.205 under Stincus: "Habitat in montis Lybiae, AEgypti, Arabia petreae." (trans. by Kitchell and Dundee, "A trilogy on the Herpetology of Linnaeus's Systema Natura X" 1994 p.14 "Lives in mountainous areas of Libya, Egypt and Arabia Petraea." With a footnote (27, p.37 stating: 'Not "Rocky Arabia" as in the translation of the 13th ed. of Syst. Nat. by Wm. Turton, but rather the area of Arabia surrounding Petra. The term is an ancient one.' This appears to me that they are suggesting that the italicization of "petreae" is a typographic error? I do not find a discussion from them regarding the meaning and implication, if any, of the italics. In classical Latin petra ~ae f. A rock, boulder, or crag. Petra ~ae f. The name of several towns, esp. the chief town of Arabia Petraea. I expect that Kitchell and Dundee may not have attended to the implications of the italiciziation, and lower case used by Linnaeus. Alternatively the lower case and italicization may not have been Linnaeus' intent. Occam's razor would, I believe, favor "Rocky Arabia" over "Arabia Petraea". However, the meaning and consistency of the italiciziation is not clear. In the instances of Testudo carinata p.198 and Testudo serpentina p.199 The text reads: "Habitat in Calidis regionibus." And the only reasonable interpretation is that given by Kitchell and Dundee: "Lives in warm regions." "Calidis" does not seem to be any PLACE, so by my theory it would seem it should be italicized, and it is not. Note 2: The date of Systema Naturae is fixed by the ICZN as 1 January, 1758. This may not be far from the actual date it was published. In his 'Index to the "Systema Naturæ" of Linnaeus.' 1899. C. Davies Sherborn indicates (p.vi): "In a letter to Mr. John Ellis, dated 8 Feb., 1758, Linnæus says the first vol. of the 10th ed. of the Systema was just published. We can therefore safely date Zoological Nomenclature from 1st Jan., 1758." ] Systema Naturae, &c. Linneai, Caroli Editio duodecima reformata Tomus I (= Regne animale) 1766 8vo pp. 1327+36 Tom. I pt. 1 pp.1-532 1766 Tom. I pt. 2 pp.532- 1327 1767 Tom. I pt. 2 Appendix and Errata pp.246-248 1767 Systema Naturae, &c. Linneai, Caroli Editio decima tertia, aucta reformata, cura J.F. Gmelin 3 Tom. [in 7] 1788-93 8vo Lipsiae
"With this symbol ... Linné denotes that he has not seen the animal in question neither in vivo nor in any museum (but instead has named it only after an older description or figure by another author)." The above is my translation from the German out of: Nordstroem, F. 1943. Zur Deutung einiger Linnéscher und Clerckscher Schmetterlingsarten. II. Was ist Phalaena Geometra amata L.? Pp. 14-19 in: Malaise, R. (ed.): Folium entomologicum. Festschrift z. 60. Geburtstage von Felix Bryk. - Lund. At least in the entomological literature, many authors after Linné - for example the founders of dipterology, Meigen, Wiedemann, etc. - have followed the 'master' all the way down to typographical detail, and also used the dagger symbol when discussing species they knew only from literature references.
... It appears that Linnaeus used the dagger for different things, according to which publication was involved! Botanists rarely have occasion to use the Systema since we have his Species Plantarum (2 editions) as well as his Genera Plantarum and Linnaeus rarely (but sometimes) used the Systema for new plants species.
This info is to be found in William T. Stearn's magisterial introduction the 1957 Ray Society's facsimile edition of Linnaeus' Species Plantarum in his Chapter 18 "Signs Used by Linnaeus" (pp.162-163).
It is explained by Linnaeus himself on page 613 of the 10th edition of the Systema. In addition to what it represents, his reason for using it was to call attention to unseen species "so naturalists may be stimulated to examine them more closely." Dance gives a translation taken from Heller, 1964 Huntia 1:33-70 (which I [RP] have not seen). He is quoted by Dance as translating Linnaeus' note as:
"We have everywhere used the sign of the Cross to mark animals which we have not seen either in the living state or preserved in Museums, that so Naturalists may be stimulated to examine them more closely."
(†) Signo Crucis ubique notavimus animalia nobis nec viva, nec in muſeis aſſervata viſa, ut Naturæ conſulti ad ea attentius examinanda incitentur.
Comments&Suggestions to Data Steward
