|
|
Post by gauthier on Jan 8, 2014 7:48:20 GMT -8
Thanks Michel
But if you read the text of Etudes d'entologie vol. 14 (April 1891) that you post, you have the following text:(page 8)
"La description a paru dans une note spéciale que nous avons imprimée et répandue dans le public entomologique, à la date du 25 septembre 1890. Nous reproduisons cette description comme suit: etc..."
And this is this special note that we are looking for!
Anyway THANKS
For the forum: Etudes d'entomologie Vol. 1 to 20 are on BHL. Vol. 21 is missing.
Alain
|
|
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 8, 2014 9:10:54 GMT -8
Yes, Alain is correct, the publication in Etudes d'Entomologie vol. 14 (1891) is not actually the original description of Parnassius orleans but a reproduction of it. It is necessary to check the real original description, as sometimes changes are made in subsequent reproductions.
Adam.
|
|
mygos
Full Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by mygos on Jan 8, 2014 11:51:18 GMT -8
Adam and Alain,
Yes you are right, and I have the document you are talking about, and I will scan it tomorrow !
But the Zoological Record mention the Etudes d'entomologie as the reference ...
A+, Michel
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 8, 2014 12:33:52 GMT -8
Yes, but unfortunately the Zoological Record can be erroneous. It only recorded the names and publications that it knew about.
Thank you very much indeed for scanning it for me. I appreciate it.
Adam.
|
|
|
|
Post by joee30 on Jan 8, 2014 22:43:33 GMT -8
Here are some of the goodies from my Parnassius collection:  Parnassius acco and Parnassius choui pair  Parnassius autocrator male and Parnassius loxias tashkorensis |
|
mygos
Full Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by mygos on Jan 9, 2014 1:35:04 GMT -8
Yes, but unfortunately the Zoological Record can be erroneous. It only recorded the names and publications that it knew about. Thank you very much indeed for scanning it for me. I appreciate it. Adam. Adam, the scan is on the way to you ... To me it seems from the document that it was not officially published in any periodical or entomological work, reason why it is not considered in the Zoological Record. Of course they can be mistakes ... In this document dated 25 september 1890, Charles Oberthur mention that he will incoporate its description with a figure in his coming XIV° Livraison of "Etudes d'entomologie", which may explain why ? As you know, Oberthur was always saying and writing that for him a valid description is a description with a figure ! gauthier If you want the scan please send me your email ? A+, Michel |
|
|
|
|
|
Post by gauthier on Jan 9, 2014 4:45:38 GMT -8
Michel
PM and email sent.
Alain
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 9, 2014 8:31:30 GMT -8
Here are some of the goodies from my Parnassius collection: Parnassius acco and Parnassius choui pair Parnassius autocrator male and Parnassius loxias tashkorensis is just a synonym of P. szechenyii ssp. eros. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 9, 2014 8:37:57 GMT -8
To me it seems from the document that it was not officially published in any periodical or entomological work, reason why it is not considered in the Zoological Record. Of course they can be mistakes ... In this document dated 25 september 1890, Charles Oberthur mention that he will incoporate its description with a figure in his coming XIV° Livraison of "Etudes d'entomologie", which may explain why ? As you know, Oberthur was always saying and writing that for him a valid description is a description with a figure ! A+, Michel Yes, it is possible that the Zoological Record didn't know about this publication because of the way it was published. Nonetheless it is a valid description and publication according to the ICZN Code, and the name P. orleans is available from that publication regardless of the presence or absence of a figure. Many older names were validly published just with a few words for a 'description' and no figure at all. Adam. |
|
mygos
Full Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by mygos on Jan 9, 2014 9:36:40 GMT -8
Adam : Of course a description without a figure is valid !
Where the problem is, is that I thought that this 3 pages documents needs to be in a registered work (book) or a periodical to be valid ...
If this one was printed by his famous printing company and just given or sent to a few other friends entomologist, then I do not think this publication is valid ? Am I right there ?
A+, Michel
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jan 9, 2014 9:37:03 GMT -8
"Parnassius choui is just a synonym of P. szechenyii ssp. eros"
Thanks for that Adam, a few years ago these appeared on the market at quite reasonable prices so I though what the hell, might as well have a dabble and bought a couple of pairs, after setting them my untrained, barbaric eyes couldn't tell them apart from szechenyii, bit disappointed but hey ho.
|
|
|
|
Post by Adam Cotton on Jan 9, 2014 13:12:33 GMT -8
Adam : Of course a description without a figure is valid ! Where the problem is, is that I thought that this 3 pages documents needs to be in a registered work (book) or a periodical to be valid ... If this one was printed by his famous printing company and just given or sent to a few other friends entomologist, then I do not think this publication is valid ? Am I right there ? A+, Michel Indeed that is not the case. Article 8.1 defines a publication: 8.1. Criteria to be met. A work must satisfy the following criteria: 8.1.1. it must be issued for the purpose of providing a public and permanent scientific record, 8.1.2. it must be obtainable, when first issued, free of charge or by purchase, and 8.1.3. it must have been produced in an edition containing simultaneously obtainable copies by a method that assures numerous identical and durable copies. Also consider 8.4. Works produced before 1986. To be published, a work produced before 1986 must have been produced on paper, by a printing method then conventional (such as letterpress, offset printing) or by hectographing or mimeographing. This paper complies with all the above points. Note also that there is no requirement for it to be part of a journal, book or other formal publication. If Oberthur printed only a few copies and then sent them to his friends that would actually confer availability, as there is no lower limit to the number of originals in the print run, except for the word 'numerous' in 8.1.3. Since this number is not actually defined anywhere in the Code it can be assumed that this number should be at least 2 copies at an absolute minimum, since a single copy cannot be treated as 'numerous'. Adam. |
|
|
|
Post by gauthier on Jan 9, 2014 21:21:39 GMT -8
Thanks Michel for the PDF.
Presently, this publication is recognized to be the valid date of the description.
|
|
mygos
Full Member
Posts: 230
|
Post by mygos on Jan 9, 2014 23:06:13 GMT -8
Thanks Adam for these very clear explanation. I now fully agree with you and Alain !
A+, Michel
|
|
