Holthuis, L.B. & W. Vervoort. (2006). The date of publication of Wilhelm Giesbrecht's "Pelagische Copepoden", in Fauna und Flora des Golfes von Neapel, volume 19. Crustaceana (Leiden). 79(3):371-374.

89559

10.1163/156854006776759581 [view]

Holthuis, L.B. & W. Vervoort

2006

79(3):371-374.

Publication

authors provide references and information as to the correct publication date of Giesbrecht 1892-1893, they propose 1893 is the date for the names of taxa in this paper

Available for editors  

There has lately been some uncertainty whether Giesbrecht’s important monograph on the free-living Copepoda of the Bay of Naples should be dated 1892 or 1893. The date printed on both the text-volume and the atlas of this work is 1892. But in the bibliography of his revision of the free-swimming, littoral, and semiparasitic Copepoda of the Siboga Expedition, A. Scott (1909: 274) dates Giesbrecht’s publication “1893” and adds the remark “(published January 26th 1893)”. As Giesbrecht and A. Scott were contemporaries and most likely exchanged letters, this remark has to be taken seriously, especially as Scott gives such a precise indication of the date of publication. Furthermore, there is no good reason why he should be mistaken. No author using the date 1892 gives a more accurate date for the publication of the book, so that if 1892 were correct, according to Article 21.3.2 of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature (ed. 4), it should have to be cited as 31 December 1892. The date given by Scott is only 26 days later, and it is not likely that an older synonym of any of the new names published by Giesbrecht should have been published during that short time. Of course, many authors (most probably not aware of A. Scott’s (1909) remark) at first used the date 1892, being the one printed on Giesbrecht’s volume. And many are still hesitant to change from 1892 to 1893. Unfortunately, there are no letters that might throw some light on the exact date of publication in the archives of the Zoological Station, Naples, and A. Scott’s correspondence has been destroyed (D. M. Damkaer, pers. comm.). Nevertheless, we have found some more indications of the correctness of A. Scott’s (1909) remark: 1. Archiv für Naturgeschichte, Jahrgang 60, Band II, Heft 2 (pp. 1-434), published 1894, contains on pp. 277-434 three papers entitled “Bericht über die Leistungen in der Carcinologie während des Jahres” 1891, 1892, resp. 1893 [Report on the achievements in carcinology during the year 1891, 1892 and 1893, respectively]. These three papers were published simultaneously in the same issue, and are paginated consecutively. The first paper (for 1891) was published by F. Hilgendorf, the two others (for 1892 and 1893) by Ph. Bertkau. Giesbrecht’s book was reviewed in the third part with “die Leistungen in der Carcinologie während 1893” [achievements in carcinology during 1893] and not in the simultaneously published paper for 1892. There would have been no good reason for Bertkau not to include the discussion of Giesbrecht’s book in his 1892 paper as this was published together with the paper for 1893, other than that it actually was published in 1893. 2. Furthermore, in his “Bericht über die Zoologische Station während der Jahre 1885-1892” [Report on the Zoological Station during the years 1885-1892], A. Dohrn (1893: 667), the director of the Naples Station remarked about the Monographs that “eine sehr empfindliche Pause im Erscheinen der Monographien . . . die seit 1890 gedauert hat und erst im Anfange dieses Jahres [= 1893, Dohrn’s paper being dated 1 April 1893] überwunden worden ist. Vor Kurzem sind die Copepoden von Giesbrecht erschienen” [a substantial interval in the appearance of the monographs . . . that lasted since 1890 and has only been lifted in the beginning of this year (= 1893, Dohrn’s paper being dated 1 April 1893). Recently, Giesbrecht’s Copepoden have been published]. There are two comments, by Giesbrecht himself, that concern the date of publication of his “Monograph” and that should be considered here. The first remark is in a paper on Pleuromamma published 12 June 1893, where Giesbrecht remarks: “. . . meiner, Ende voriges Jahres erschienen Monographie der pelagischen Copepoden . . .” [my monograph on pelagic Copepoda that appeared at the end of the previous year] (Giesbrecht, 1893b: 213). Giesbrecht’s pelagic Copepod monograph was printed by Breitkopf & Härtel in Leipzig, Germany and, considering the possibilities of communication at that period, it seems likely that Giesbrecht was unaware of the exact date of publication of his monograph when he finished his paper on Pleuromamma, undoubtedly weeks before the date of publication, 12 June 1893. Secondly, in a paper published 25 September 1893, Giesbrecht states: . . . meiner kürzlich erschienen Monographie der pelagischen Copepoden des Golfes von Neapel . . . [my monograph on the pelagic Copepoda of the Bay of Naples published recently] (Giesbrecht, 1893c: 56). Although the exact interpretation of the time interval indicated by “kürzlich” (recently) is open to dispute, it is not unreasonable to suppose that in this instance Giesbrecht was aware of the exact date of publication: shortly before he finished writing this particular paper. There can, therefore, in our opinion be no reasonable doubt that Scott was correct in his dating of Giesbrecht’s book. As the use of the date 1893 instead of 1892 does not cause, so far as we can see, any nomenclatural difficulties, we suggest that one should keep strictly to the facts and use the correct date 1893 here. Suggesting to request the International Commission of Zoological Nomenclature to declare 1892 the official date for Giesbrecht’s book not only is against the actual situation, but has no direct advantages.

RIS (EndNote, Reference Manager, ProCite, RefWorks)
BibTex (BibDesk, LaTeX)

[Back to search]