Issuu on Google+

Priority! The Dating of Scientific Names in Ornithology A Directory to the Literature and its Reviewers

Compiled and edited by Edward C. Dickinson, Leslie K. Overstreet, Robert J. Dowsett and Murray D. Bruce

In memory of Charles Davies Sherborn (1861 - 1942) and Charles Wallace Richmond (1868 - 1932)


Contents Abstract

5

Introduction

7

Ÿ

Contributors and acknowledgements

10

Ÿ

Abbreviations and acronyms

13

Ÿ

List of illustrations

14

Chapter 1

Implications of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and some comments on these (ECD)

Chapter 2

Our approach (LO and ECD)

15

Ÿ

Introduction

25

Ÿ

Printing and publishing: historical and technical background

25

Ÿ

General notes on dates

37

Ÿ

References available for consultation A

Resource types: how this section is organised

B

Resources described, with examples

43

Ÿ

Introduction

44

Ÿ

The original work

45

Ÿ

Primary resources

50

Ÿ

Secondary resources

52

Chapter 3

Books (arranged alphabetically by author) (all compilers)

Chapter 4

Periodicals (alphabetically by name of periodical) (all compilers)

69 165

References

255

Glossary

285

Appendices

299

Indexes

303

Ÿ

Books

303

Ÿ

Periodicals

307

Ÿ

Generic Names

313

Ÿ

Species-Group names

313

Ÿ

General

317 Tables see index on CD-ROM


LIST OF ILLUSTRATIONS Figure

Subject

Page number

1

First state of p. 558 from the 1887 Proc. Zool. Soc., London

36

2

Second state of p. 558 from the 1887 Proc. Zool. Soc., London

36

3

Conspectus Generum Avium direction line details

39

4

A dated plate from Jardine's Contributions to Ornithology for 1849

40

5

Colophon from Tori

41

6

Binding Instructions from von Heuglin's work

48

7

A page from the Bibliographie de la France

56

8

The Smithsonian Institution International Exchange programme

65

9

A research slip from Sherborn in a volume in the BM(NH) library

66

10

Brill's note in the Conspectus Generum Avium vol. 2

76

11

Latham's Supplement II. First Edition 1801. Title page

115

12

Latham's Supplement II. Another Edition 1802. Title page

115

13

Radde's Ornis Caucasicus: the rare Russian edition. Cover page

132

14

Radde's Ornis Caucasicus: date of censor's approval

132

15

Temminck & Laugier's Planches Coloriées : wrapper livr. 13 front

155

16

Temminck & Laugier's Planches Coloriées : wrapper livr. 13 back

155

17

The 1926 preprint of Gyldenstolpe's “1927” type catalogue

180

18

The Auk: evidence of early distribution of author's copies

182

19

Sherborn's tabulation of the Bijdragen following Jentink

184

20

Férussac's note regarding the 1831 commercial crisis

188

21

Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum. No. 4. Primary title page

192

22

Bulletin of the U.S. National Museum. No. 4. Second title page

192

23

A Limosa masthead correcting the date from 1949 to 1950

212

24

Guérin-Méneville's notice regarding the delayed 1837 Mag. de Zool.

214

25

Öfversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar: dates

227

26

Dated advertisements in the Proc. Acad. Nat. Sci., Philadelphia

232

27

Numbered sheets supplied to the Smithsonian Institution

238

28

The Revue Zoologique publishing policy revealed in 1842

243

š›

14


CHAPTER 1 Implications of the International Code of Zoological Nomenclature and some comments on these We should like to thank the Secretariat of the International Commission on Zoological Nomenclature (hereafter the ICZN when in the text, but I.C.Z.N. as a cited authority) for permission to quote the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999) but readers should be clear that all comments upon the wording are ours and have no seal of approval from the Secretariat or individual members of its staff, or any of its Commissioners. Quotations from the Code, from here on, are in quotation marks and also printed in a type fount that is clearly different.

Article 3 Starting point “The date 1 January 1758 is arbitrarily fixed in this Code as the date of the starting point of zoological nomenclature”. Two subsidiary articles follow. The first fixes the dates of two publications, the one which concerns ornithology being Linnaeus’s Systema Naturae, 10th edition; both are fixed as 1�ᵗ January 1758, but the second work by Clerck on spiders is assigned priority. The second of these restricts the application of previous information so that names prior to 1758 are excluded. The earliest developments in the direction of a Code focused on the 12th Edition of the Systema Naturæ of Linnaeus (1766) (Bock, 1994; Melville, 1995; Bruce, 2003; Walters, 2003). Readers will probably be aware that the Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum (1874-1898) was compiled taking 1766 as the starting date, not starting with the 10th edition of Linnaeus (1758). Names used in 1758 were not always repeated in Linnaeus (1766); there were substitutions and cases where a name used in 1758 was used for something else in 1766 (see Sherborn, 1899a: vi-vii). The Catalogue, as we may later refer to this, will thus sometimes be found to be using a name that was supplanted when the 10th edition was eventually accepted at the end of the 19th century. In Britain this acceptance did not come until after the Catalogue was completed. Naturally this also means that a good few very early names from other early authors are missing from the extensive and valuable synonymies in the Catalogue.

Article 9 What does not constitute published work In Article 8, which is extensive and should be read, the Code sets out what constitutes published work. Article 9 provides a list of nine categories of works that do not qualify. These, abbreviated here, are: facsimile reproductions of handwriting after 1930, photographs, proof sheets, microfilms, acoustic records, specimen labels, copies of unpublished work, text or illustrations distributed electronically and abstracts (and posters and lecture texts). The mention of proof sheets is interesting. This italicised term is one of a number we use here that are taken from the wording of the Code. There is no definition of proof sheets in the Code’s Glossary, which is an integral part of it, and, although the term will widely be accepted as self-explanatory, the lack of a definition is felt when a distinction has to be made between proofs (or proof sheets) and a limited “publication” through distribution of “advance sheets“ which may seem to be proofs but might be a partial and unofficial early release of some part of a book – but not a distinct separate part within the context of a book intended for release in planned parts, livraisons or lieferungen. Such planned part-works were common for much of the 19th century. We would be happier if the Code dealt specifically with advance sheets (and with “part-works”) since the terms

15


preprint and separate do not relate to advance sheets and such sheets need distinction from part-works by definition. Each case of advance sheet distribution may only have reached selected fellow zoologists but this is, arguably, still publication (and we accept it as such in the interests of stability). Separates that seem to have been distributed early are, after 1999, disqualified in the sense that they cannot advance the date of publication as a preprint, endowed with “its own date of publication” can. The mention of microfilms, which we take to include microfiches, does not reduce the evidential value of such compilations as the “Richmond Index” (Richmond, 1992), but does imply that had Richmond coined a new name within his cards, by adding a modest descriptive comment, the publication of the microfiche would not validate that. The inclusion of electronically distributed material carries an explicit mention of the World Wide Web. Nowadays we see a number of periodicals choosing to publish their papers, or abstracts of them, on-line almost always in advance of the printed edition if there is one. Currently, the official position is that nomenclatural acts in these papers cannot be dated from their appearance on the web, but only from the printed work when that appears. This is at least partially due to concerns that web-published material will become untraceable, but also that there could be changes between what is said in an electronic original and what is said in the printed work (and as unedited manuscripts “set in type” by the publishers are now often distributed this is a very real concern). The subject is under review by the ICZN and the debate they have led has moved on to the proposal of a requirement of prior registration, in ZooBank, of new zoological names being introduced electronically. As proposed, this would be a condition for acceptance of priority from the date of electronic appearance (Polaszek et al., 2005, I.C.Z.N., 2008; see the ICZN web-site for more references). This change, when approved, may have attached to it a requirement that the printed work must appear within a set timeframe or for the formal deposition of a “copy of record” which can be printed out for storage or held as a PDF. In the context of abstracts the full text makes clear that the exclusion applies “when issued primarily to participants at meetings etc.” The wording would seem to disqualify abstracts published before ornithological congresses, but not the full papers in the “proceedings” of the same, nor in work then included in abstract form only. We are aware of a new drepanid name Hemignathus munroi Pratt, 1979, published in Dissertation Abstracts, 40: 1581, which is accepted by A.O.U. (1998: 675) and appears to be generally accepted. Theses are not among the nine listed concerns. However those that are published – and the criteria to be met here are set out in Art. 8 – are not always considered, by the local academic or publishing community, to be validly published because of the extent to which some such publications lack official standing. The variation in acceptance seems to be a matter of local custom, perhaps due to differing interpretations of the Code, or different degrees of compliance with it (Evenhuis, 1997). The question here is beyond the scope of a work on dating but Kullander (19.04.2010) in a posting on the “iczn-list”, who stated that Swedish dissertations were always validly published, argued that the date of printing did not demonstrate publication on that date and that circulation was usually only weeks before the defence of the thesis, and suggested that the publication date to be preferred was that of the thesis defence. When unpublished, a thesis does not meet the criteria of Article 8 and is not a valid vehicle for the introduction of a new name. Newspapers are not excluded. There was some fairly heated debate about this in the mid 20ᵗ� century and this reverberates to-day: see I.C.Z.N., 2011 (Opinion 2270 – where one Commissioner signalled a continuing objection). Descriptions of new birds are known from newspapers in Australia, Germany, South Africa and the United Kingdom between 1822 (the Kentucky Gazette, U.S.A.) and 1910 (the Daily Mail, U.K./Eire) and such names are accepted, even from a title such as American 16


Exchange and Mart (Maynard, 1887). Publication of a new name in a newspaper today would be seen as frivolous, but in the 19th century some newspapers were central to scientific exchanges of view! Also, of course there have been newspaper correspondents who have reported on society meetings in periodicals like The Athenaeum where validity and precedence have been discussed by Bruce & McAllan (1990) and eventually I.C.Z.N. (2003). Disclaimed work: this is not referred to in Art. 9, but Art. 8.3 makes the point that disclaimed names or acts are not available. The term “Disclaimer” is explained in the Code’s Glossary. A disclaimer must be part of the original publication. A name published with a description but then visibly replaced, as evidenced for example by a publishers insert, is not precisely disclaimed, it is rather replaced for the name introduced in the original leaf (the cancellandum) was validly introduced; however the replacement leaf (the cancellans) will sometimes explain that the original name was preoccupied or is otherwise unavailable. Several cases are addressed in the following chapters: as regards books see Gould’s Monograph of the Ramphastidae (1833-35) (p. 95), the discussion of his Birds of Australia, and adjacent islands (p. 97), Richardson & Gray’s The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Erebus & Terror (p. 137) and Swann’s Synoptical List of the Accipitres (1919-20) (p. 151). As regards periodicals see Jardine’s Contributions to Ornithology (p. 203). An author’s later repudiation of a name is usually a revised taxonomic judgement and not a nomenclatural act.

Article 21 Determination of date Eight articles are included under this heading. The precise text of these is key to the use of this book; these are: “21.1. Date to be adopted. Except as provided in Article 3, the date to be adopted as the date of publication and of a contained name or nomenclatural act is to be determined in accordance with the following provisions. 21.2. Date specified. The date of publication specified in a work is to be adopted as correct in the absence of evidence to the contrary. [French text includes: “en l’absence de preuve du contraire”]. 21.3. Date incompletely specified. If the day of publication is not specified in a work, the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted as the date of publication, but in the absence of such evidence the date to be adopted is: 21.3.1. the last day of the month, when month and year, but not day, are specified or demonstrated, or 21.3.2. the last day of the year when only the year is specified or demonstrated 21.4. Date incorrect. If the date of publication specified in a work is found to be incorrect, the earliest day on which the work is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted. In the absence of evidence as to day, the provisions of Article 21.3 apply.

17


21.5. Dates of works issued in parts. If parts of a work were published on different days, the date of publication of each part is to be separately determined. 21.6. Range of dates. If the date of publication specified in a work is a range of dates, the work is to be dated from the final day or the range; however, if evidence demonstrates that the date so determined is incorrect or that the work was issued in parts, the date or dates of publication are to be determined according to the relevant provisions of Articles 21.3-21.5. 21.7. Date not specified. If the date of publication is not specified in a work, the earliest day on which the work, or a part of it, is demonstrated to be in existence as a published work is to be adopted as the date of publication of the work or of that part. In the absence of evidence as to the day, the provisions of Article 21.3 apply. 21.8. Advance distribution of separates and preprints. Before 2000, an author who distributed separates in advance of the specified date of publication of the work in which the material is published thereby advanced the date of publication. The advance of issue of separates after 1999 does not do so, whereas preprints, clearly imprinted with their own date of publication, may be printed works from the date of their issue (see Glossary: “separate”, “preprint”).” There follow six recommendations, some directed at publishers and periodical editors, and some at the author. The last of these six recommends that an author of a name or other nomenclatural act should publish a correction of the date of publication if the specified date is incorrect or incomplete. Such a publication qualifies under Art. 21.4. However if the publication is in a periodical and only one of the authors of names proposed in the same issue of that periodical publishes a correction (a case we have noted in the context of the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club, 38, issue ccxxix dated Dec. 19, 1917) (see p. 190) then conflicting information presents a problem. We believe that in the context of periodicals a “corrected date” should be accepted only when published, within a limited time, by the periodical concerned, whether explained by the editor or submitted by one of the authors. The above articles are not without problems of interpretation. For example, does the demonstration that a date is incorrect require “proof” that it is incorrect or just evidence that there is a probability that it is incorrect? The English Code seems vague, but the use of ‘preuve’ in the French Code does not really help. There is also a difficulty, mentioned earlier, flowing from limited publication when proofs or advance sheets, usually of one or more gatherings (sometimes called signatures) of a work, were distributed to a handful of fellow zoologists – see the entries that follow on Bonaparte’s Conspectus Generum Avium, vol. 2 (pp. 75-77) and on Museum Heineanum vol. 1 by Cabanis (pp. 80-83). The 1999 Code makes the presence or absence of “its own date of publication” a definitive distinction between a preprint, and a separate, which would not have such a date. The Code’s definition of separate brings together the “offprint” with the “reprint”, and one is left with dictionary definitions of these (see also our Glossary): a reprint being created later than the original printing and an offprint at essentially the same time and from the same set type. Modified pages numbers, with the article pagination changed to begin at page one, should be expected to be reprints, but in some periodicals page numbers of both natures were included in the journal itself and in the authorised separates (which if they had their own date of publication would be preprints).

18


CHAPTER 2 Our approach INTRODUCTION When new but conflicting names for a taxon are published close together in time, whether by the same or different authors, priority must be assigned to the earlier one. It may seem a straightforward matter to determine which one was published first: virtually all books and periodicals have a date printed on the title page or issue cover. Unfortunately, these dates may be inadequately specific, unreliable, or actually incorrect. As a simple example, anyone who has subscribed to a periodical will have had the experience of receiving an issue months after its printed date. This and related situations have occurred regularly over the centuries of scientific publication and have given rise to numerous confusions, and the dates of many scientific names are even now subject to some degree of doubt. This chapter will provide the historical and technical background of the printing process and the conceptual principles underlying our discussions of research on dates of publication, so that others may review the information in the main sections of this book and make decisions regarding the potential need to correct a date. We do not address the question of prevailing usage (see Glossary p. 121 in I.C.Z.N., 1999) or other questions peripheral to the determination of dates of publication.

PRINTING AND PUBLICATION: HISTORICAL AND TECHNICAL BACKGROUND Words in bold type in this chapter are given definitions in our Glossary but may be more fully described here in context. Publication – the printing and distribution of multiple copies of a text or illustration – is a prerequisite for establishing the availability of a new scientific name. The processes by which books and periodicals were printed, distributed, sold, and bound over the past two and a half centuries since Linnaeus’s binomial system, which became the established basis for modern nomenclature, have a direct bearing on dating publications from that period. Both the physical books and periodicals themselves and archival documentation may provide evidence for resolving questions about dates. However, deciphering such information is not always easy. From Gutenberg’s invention of movable type around 1450 until the early 1800s (the hand-press period) books were made by hand. Even after the introduction of mechanization for each of the component parts of book production from the mid-1700s through the late 1800s, many of the methods and customs of the hand-press period continued to be practiced. To varying degrees, whether hand-made or mechanized, each of the elements making up the physical volume or piece – paper, type, ink, sewing, binding – contains indications of its manufacture and use that may provide clues to dating old works. Note: We cannot emphasize too strongly that the following description of the bookmaking process is a general overview and that there are known (and, surely, some so-far unknown) exceptions, whether geographical, chronological, or individual, to every element or component discussed. Researchers attempting to analyze any specific publication are advised to investigate further the individual circumstances of the work before drawing definitive conclusions. The bibliography in Gaskell (1972) provides an excellent starting point for this. Paper Introduced into Europe in the 13th century as an alternative to vellum and parchment (animal skins), paper was made of cotton and/or linen rags that were washed, bleached by the sun, allowed to rot 25


briefly, and then beaten with mallets in a vat of water until the fibres separated and formed a general slurry or pulp. Dipping a flat, wood-framed sieve (called a “mould”) into the vat of pulp, lifting it out with a thin layer of pulp settled on top of the wire mesh, and giving it a quick shake to set the fibres in a mat produced a sheet of paper. Dried, sized, and pressed, the sheet was ready to use. Hand-made paper is called “laid” paper, and it continues to be made for special purposes to the present day. Different rags, bleaching, and fermenting customs produced differently coloured and textured sheets; these might be made for different purposes or distinctive to different countries, mills, or time periods, or simply the result of specific conditions at any given place and time. There were no industry‑wide conventions regarding paper content or quality until the 17ᵗ� century, although certain mills became known for the quality of their paper as early as the 16ᵗ�. Similarly, there was little if any commonality in paper sizes or nomenclature, and each mill made and used its own moulds to produce sheets in whatever variable sizes its particular market required. By the 18th century, however, quality and size were increasingly standardized, at least within each country, whether by custom, the industry’s guilds, or national regulations. A mechanical method of extruding the pulp onto a continuous web was developed by James Whatman in 1755 and in the 1800s was gradually adopted more widely, producing what is called “wove” paper. The mechanization of the process roughly coincided with attempts in the final years of the 18th century to expand the production of paper by developing a more plentiful source of raw material; after a variety of experiments the search eventually settled on wood pulp, which to be rendered usable required extensive treatment and the addition of various chemicals, all of which made it much more acidic and brittle than cotton-rag paper. Wove paper often has a characteristically different finish to the surface of the sheet than laid paper. Under normal circumstances the number of pages in a publication and the number of copies desired would be calculated in advance and the requisite amount of paper purchased, so that the entire work would be on the same stock. Paper has a feel and a look, so visual and tactile evidence, not to mention more technical analyses, can often suggest the use of different stocks for works published in parts over time, for example, or the later addition or substitution of leaves within the text-block. Such clues must be supported by more concrete evidence of the paper’s production, which can sometimes be supplied by a study of the interior of the paper, i.e., the evidence of wire patterns and watermarks from the mould or web upon which the sheet was made. Since the pulp for laid paper settled more thinly where it lay over the wires of the sieve than elsewhere, the paper sheet shows the wire pattern when held to the light. The main vertical wires produced chain lines; the thinner horizontal wires produced wire lines. Additional wires outlining a figure or letters were attached to the sieve wires, almost always in the middle of the right half of the mould, to produce the watermark. Initially the individualized trade-marks or devices of specific mills or paper-makers, watermarks evolved during the 18th century into more generalized symbols indicating the quality and size of the sheet; as a result paper-makers began adding their initials or device as a separate countermark on the opposite half of the mould. Watermarks, primarily from the hand-press period, can sometimes be roughly dated and placed by reference to published studies in this field (e.g. Briquet, 1907; see also our Appendices, p. 299). It is worth noting that watermarks and “chain lines” may appear in machine-made, or wove, paper if the paper-maker troubled to attach such figures to the web or belt, but rarely if ever did one attempt to reproduce wire lines.

26


To begin, then: in general the printing of a book commenced with the text proper, set from the author’s manuscript. The size of the sheet of paper, normally fairly large but limited by a man’s arm span (and distinct to each maker), combined with the desired size of the printed page determined the format in which the sheet was to be printed, folded, and sewn. Almost invariably, the sheet would be printed with several pages of text on each side and then would be folded to form a multi-leaved gathering, also sometimes called a quire. A leaf of a book has two pages, one on the front (the recto) and one on the back (the verso). Depending on how the sheet was folded, the watermark and chain lines will appear in different positions on the pages. Their position, in combination with the direction of the chain lines, constitutes the surest way of determining a book’s printing format. In their simplest forms: q broadsheet keeps the sheet as a single leaf and is usually printed on one side only; the watermark will appear in the middle of either half of the sheet, and the chain lines will be parallel to the shorter sides; q folio (abbreviated as “f°” or “2°”) is printed with 2 pages on each side of the sheet, with the sheet folded once down the middle, forming 2 leaves (4 pages total); the watermark will appear in the middle of one of the leaves, with the chain lines parallel to the longer sides; q quarto (“4to” or “4°”) is printed with 4 pages per side, folded twice, forming 4 leaves, 8 pages; the watermark may be visible in the middle of the inner margin (the gutter), with the chain lines running parallel to the shorter sides; q octavo (“8vo” or “8°”) is printed with 8 pages per side, folded three times, forming 8 leaves, 16 pages; the watermark may be visible in the upper or lower corner of the inner margin (the gutter), with the chain lines parallel to the longer sides; q duodecimo (“12mo” or “12°”) is printed with 12 pages per side, folded various ways, forming 12 leaves, 24 pp.; and so on. Given the various ways in which duodecimos and smaller formats (sextodecimo or “16mo”, octodecimo or “18mo”, etc.) may be imposed and printed, the watermark may appear in different places and the chain lines may run in either direction. More complicated formats are produced by quiring (stacking several sheets together for folding into a single gathering), half-sheet imposition (cutting the sheets in half before printing them, which – it should be noted – reverses the chain line orientations described above), and other technical variations in the printing process. Since a gathering can thus be made up of more (or less) than one sheet, in reality the number of leaves in a gathering is not always indicative of the printing format and must be analyzed in combination with the location of the watermark and the chain lines within the paper. For a thorough discussion of formats and helpful illustrations of the various positions of chain lines, watermarks, and countermarks see Gaskell (1972: 88-105, incl. figs. 46-63). Using larger and smaller sheets and re-positioning the pages of type in the forme, the same type-setting might in rare instances be used to produce issues of a work in more than one format – a folio issue and a cheaper quarto issue, for example. Without some kind of documentation of the process, it may be very difficult to determine the production sequence with certainty, but in general the more expensive version would be produced first (in this example, the folio), when the type was cleanest and sharpest, and so signs of progressive damage to the type may be indicative of later use. In any format, the leaves in the first half of each gathering carried a signature at the bottom of the recto page (on octavo sheets, for example: A, A2, A3, A4 for the first gathering; B, B2, B3, B4 for the second, and so on) to show the binder how to fold the sheet with the pages in the correct order and 29


how to organize the gatherings in their correct sequence. In the hand-press period, the signature marks were the letters of the alphabet as in the example just given; but it should be noted that in those days I and J were considered merely different forms of the same letter, as were U and V, while W was literally two U/Vs, so that the alphabet used in signature marks had only 23 letters. If the printed text was longer than 23 gatherings, a second alphabet was used (either Aa, Bb, etc., or 2A, 2B, etc.), and similarly for a third, and then a fourth, or however many were needed. In the 19th century signature marks often consisted of numbers instead and could continue indefinitely in a straight numerical sequence. In either system, the first signature mark (A or 1) was usually reserved for the preliminary matter - or “prelims” - (and sometimes omitted), so that the text proper started with B (or 2); but when additional gatherings were needed due to an unexpectedly lengthy preface, for example, other typographic marks were used – asterisks or reversed parentheses, for example. The sequence of these gatherings is called the collation and is expressed through a concise notation system in a collation formula. Also in the direction line, whether on the recto or verso of the leaf, especially in the 19th century, a compositor or press number may sometimes be found (when the work was distributed among more than one type-setter and press) or a date (generally, it must be assumed, specifying the date of type-setting or of intended printing). These were both for use in the print shop to calculate wages for piece-work and other practical, business matters. See also “date de dépôt légal” (p. 40). When multi-volume works were being printed, especially if done simultaneously on several presses, or for a multi-part work, the direction line might include a volume or part number to clarify for the binder which sets of pages belonged together. The various elements of a completed text-block could include, in sequence: q The half-title page on which is printed a short form of the title. This evolved from the bookseller’s need to protect an assembled text while it was waiting for a buyer (who would then select a binding for it); either the printer would leave blank the front leaf of the preliminary gathering, or the bookseller would wrap another sheet of paper around the printed text-block. The need to identify the work so wrapped led to the addition of an abbreviated title on this leaf/sheet. q The title page shows the author, the title, and usually the place, the agent underwriting the costs (whether the author, a printer, or, later, a publisher), and the date of printing. These last three elements (place, agent, date) are collectively called the imprint. European place names that appear in Latin or Latinized form can be determined from Peddie (1932). There is often also a printer’s device, a design or image specific to a printer or publishers, similar to a modern logo. The colophon in the first printed books, as in earlier manuscripts, provided at the very end of the text pages the information about the book that from about 1500 onward was placed on a title page; when used in the 19th and 20th centuries, it generally held technical information such as the name of the printer, distinct from the publisher in the imprint, or for fine-press books the type face and paper stock, or conversely the fact of stereotyping. Whether on the verso of the half-title, the title page or its verso, or a following page, the permission, or imprimatur, indicates that an official body controlling what could be printed has approved the book for publication. This printed authorization is sometimes dated. In modern times the title-page verso is the place for the copyright statement, with its date, reflecting formal registration of the work with an official body. Similarly, various countries require a statement of legal deposit with a date (the French “dépôt légal, 1��ᵉ trimestre 1966,” for example – usually found at the end of the publication).

30


q The preliminary matter, or prelims, might include a dedication, a list of subscribers, a preface, a table of contents, a list of plates, and other material. They varied greatly; dedications and prefaces were quite common from the 16th century forward, but tables of contents were not until the 19th century. q The text proper, usually on Arabic-numbered pages. q Sometimes after the title page, but more often at the very end of the book, a page of errata (errors) or corrigenda (corrections) lists typographical corrections to the text. q There may also be a page of instructions to the binder for placing the plates, although this was usually removed by the binder. q The index, if any, appears here (like the table of contents, a late-arriving feature in books). The French have a tendency to put the table of contents at the end of the book, right before or in place of the index.

The preliminary material and the title page were normally printed last and were usually given a separate pagination sequence, in roman numerals, so that the text pagination could begin with page 1. Although the half-title and the title page were virtually never numbered or signed, they were usually included in the calculation of both the roman-numeration and the gathering sequence for the preliminary material, as may be inferred from both sets of numbers/letters wherever they actually begin. The dates on the preface, if any, and on the title page thus generally reflect the points at which the writing and the printing of the work, respectively, were completed; for most books the title-page date is an accurate indication of the date when the work was distributed or made available for sale, but antedated works are not uncommon. For works published in parts – a very common method in the 17th-19th centuries for large, expensive, and/or illustrated works – the title-page date, normally reflecting the end-date or the inclusive date-range of the work’s publication, will not provide the information needed to date the individual parts. As a further complication, it was often the practice in France for part-publications to issue the title page and some of the preliminary material with the first part. Another practice involving the title page that may mislead or confuse a researcher comes from the business arrangement between printers or publishing houses to issue the same work separately by using text sheets from the same batch or printing, but with each placing their own title page (identifying themselves alone or both together in the imprint) on the work. This might be done by printers/publishers in the same city (to share the costs of the work) or in different cities or countries (for distribution to different geographical areas). Various by-products of the printing process sometimes prove useful in analyzing a book. For example, when the ink from the text or an illustration stains the facing page it is called off-set; when it seeps through the paper and is visible from the back, it is called bleed-through. The presence of off-setting in particular can indicate how sheets were stacked after printing or sequenced both before and after binding, indicating contemporaneous production of the pages/sheets so marked. Once the gatherings had been put together in sequence (at any stage involving the printer, bookseller, or binder) each would be sewn through the central fold individually to a cord or spine structure to create the text-block. All gatherings but those in a folio format would have additional folds along the top and/or fore-edge of the leaves that would normally be trimmed off in the binding stage. In some cases only the top edge of the text-block is trimmed, leaving the fore-edge deckle and/or folds.

31


If the rough edge of the sheet and the gathering’s folds are not trimmed off, the book is said to be untrimmed. If the gathering’s folds remain and are not cut open, the folds are unopened. The term “uncut” is also seen, but is ambiguous in that it can refer to either the trimming of edges or the opening of folds, so the more specific terms are preferred. When the folds of the gathering are not trimmed off, they provide evidence of the conjugacy of the leaves and can be helpful in determining the sheet format and the connection of un-dated pages to those whose date may be known. Without the evidence of such folds it cannot be assumed that all of the leaves in a gathering are necessarily conjugate, since separate sheets may be quired together, but as a rule they would all have been printed and distributed at the same time. It sometimes happened that an author would discover only after printing that a page of the text contained an error important enough to require its replacement by a corrected page. This would necessitate, at a minimum, a new printing of both sides of the leaf. In the simplest form of the process the page/leaf to be removed (the cancellandum, or replaced leaf) would be marked with an “X” or a slash across the text, or sliced through, and the new leaf to replace it (the cancellans, or replacement leaf) would be marked with an asterisk after the page numbers (and/or an asterisk after the signature mark, if the leaf bore one); the printer would send the gathering and the replacement leaf along with the rest of the printed text to the sewer; the gathering would be sewn and the leaf to be removed would be cut off leaving a stub as to which the replacement would be glued. Of course, if the error was not noticed until later in the process, it might require sending the replacement leaf to the bookseller holding copies of the work or to the subscribers of the part-publication with instructions for making the substitution. In such situations it is not surprising that the change might not always be made or made correctly – even when the replacement leaf was tipped in (glued along the inner, or gutter, margin of a leaf) the original leaf might not have been removed. After sewing, the text-block would be bound by means of the spine cords into boards and covered with paper, vellum, or leather to form the finished book. Before the late 1700s this was almost invariably at the choice and extra expense of the buyer, and for many books this continued to be the case well into the 19th century. In the 1830s, however, for some books this kind of binding was replaced by a far cheaper and quicker method of casing the text-block – gluing a pre-cut cover to the end-papers – and wrapping the covers with cloth, although many books continued to be bound the old-fashioned way. Since the binding of a book was commonly a wholly separate process from its printing and sale (i.e. its publication) until the late 18th century – and could be so well into the 19th for books that continued to be produced in the older way – a book’s binding or covers cannot be taken as evidence of the date of the text within its boards. This is doubly so since many older books have been re-bound, sometimes more than once, over the course of their life. Once 19th century cloth casings became common, however, the cloth “grain” and styles of decoration may prove useful in dating or differentiating editions or issues of a text that retain these original covers. For more specialised information on bindings see Sadleir (1923) and Carter (1932, 1938). Bindings can provide information about the distribution and ownership of a book, whether directly through such evidence as an armorial stamp on the cover or a bookplate, or indirectly by the fact that certain materials, component parts (the sewing structure itself, the head- and tail-bands, the end-papers, etc.), and decoration tools and styles were characteristic of different periods and places that can sometimes be identified. For example, the treatment or decoration of the edges of the text-block (the head, fore-, and tail edges) was often distinctive: gilding, speckling, or staining in various colours might be typically French, Dutch, or English; marbling patterns, similar to those on end-papers, can sometimes be broadly dated. Combining this information with an examination of the watermark may be helpful. 32


Many questions in dating the ornithological literature have been resolved, although the findings, even published findings, may not be widely known or in some cases may have been forgotten altogether. This book attempts to refer the reader to these resources and thereby to allow rapid determination of whether further investigation is necessary or not. At the same time, many known puzzles are included here, allowing us to make available whatever fragmentary evidence, or citations to it, may exist, for what that is worth. There are no doubt yet more puzzles presently unknown to us. A renewed interest in such matters in the last 10 to 15 years suggests that some remaining problems may be clarified or even resolved soon.

T�� O������� W��� The work itself The specified date (usually an imprint date) on the original work, if not contradicted within the work and if not shown later to be incorrect, is accepted. This assumes, of course, that the first appearance of the work has been correctly identified. In a few cases, two or more versions – in different formats, perhaps, or issued from different cities – bear the same date. It is often difficult to discover the facts of publication in these situations, and an examination may reveal that the versions are made up of printed sheets from the same (or stereotyped) type-settings and thus are generally just different issues of the same edition. With regard to later impressions or printings, even from stereotype plates, it should be borne in mind that they may not necessarily be exact duplications of the original, and the earliest printing is what must be found. In all such cases comparative examination is recommended, and citations should make clear which edition or issue has been determined to be the first. There is no substitute for examining the original work itself for textual and physical evidence, and it will frequently be helpful to examine more than one copy. For example, Latham’s Supplement II to the General Synopsis of Birds (see p. 115) has the imprint date M.DCCC.I on the title page, but in some copies a second “I” has been carefully added by hand to change the date to M.DCCC.II, and it was proposed by Browning & Monroe (1991) that this date be adopted, and it began to be. But a review of the evidence led to an application to the Commission to decide the argument. A volume may contain more than one dated title page. For example, Bulletin no. 4 of the United States National Museum has two title pages, one dated 1875, the other 1876. See also our entry regarding Shaw’s General Zoology (p. 147). Part-publications, in particular, despite having an overall title page with a range of dates or an end-date, may also have individual title pages for the parts that provide more precise information. For example, each of the volumes of von Heuglin’s Ornithologie Nordost-Afrikas contains two parts, and each has a title page with its own date; in this case they mislead as the work appeared in multiple lieferungen (see p. 160). If the work was issued in parts, the date and content of each part must be determined. It should be noted that the text and plates describing and depicting new taxa may not have been issued in the same part. If the plates appeared before the text and the plate captions or any accompanying list of plates (including the part wrapper) included the scientific name of a new taxon, that name is valid from the date of the plate or wrapper. This is the case for some names in Ehrenberg’s Symbolae physicae (see p. 91), in Darwin’s Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle (see p. 98), and in Le Voyage de la Coquille, Zoologie (see p. 122). French examples of plates preceding the text are common, but their captions were often limited to the vernacular names. 45


With regard to part-works (or part-publications) and periodical issues, we note again that the 1961 Code, and subsequent editions, urged librarians to retain the wrappers or covers. See Recommendation 21D (I.C.Z.N., 1999). Good zoological libraries do follow this advice. Periodical issues may have masthead dates, headline dates, or gathering dates on the individual issues which provide more precise dating information, but they must be interpreted in their proper context (see General Comments on Dates, above pp. 37-42). Conversely, the title pages, table of contents, and other introductory material for a completed volume of a periodical may contain relevant date information that did not appear on the individual issues within the year. Such pages are to be found in at least some volumes of Alauda, the Annuaire du Musée Zoologique de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences, St. Pétersbourg, Notes from Leyden Museum, and later volumes of the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia. Occasionally such data are published in the next volume but are still generally accepted as reliable. A preprint, which appears in advance of its later inclusion in a larger work, is required to bear its own specified date of publication (I.C.Z.N., 1999: Glossary p. 113), that date is accepted as a basis for advancing the date of publication (although in extremis it may be challenged for “proof” of its availability (Art. 21.8). In cases when a “preprint” was apparently created and distributed as reported in a footnote to the work giving a date of that distribution – as for example, a footnote in issue 2 (Apr) of The Auk for 1887 mentions the despatch of copies to the author on 3 Feb – it is not obviously a Code-compliant preprint (although were these authors’ copies to carry those dates they would immediately be Code-compliant). We nonetheless respect such dates as they have long been accepted. The period before publication can be long: on p. 195 we report a preprint which appeared 16 years before it was published within its volume. Separates are another matter. This term is used for offprints and reprints, like preprints they are extracts from a journal or a larger work; they are distinguished from preprints in that they do not have their own specified date of publication (I.C.Z.N., 1999: Glossary p. 115). But beware, separates may carry a date “read”, or “presented”, for example, separates of papers by Salvadori from his publications in the Atti della R[eale]. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino have an “Adunanza” date which refers to when the paper was presented or read. Others may be dated in terms of the “month of the meeting” at which the paper was presented, for example, separates of papers by Lawrence published in the Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York often have a date; this appears to be the last of the meeting months covered by the gatherings combined to make up a given issue. Such dates are some time before printing and can serve only as “not-before” dates (and are not accepted for advancing the date of publication). There may be much potential information in this realm, but “proof” of the early distribution of separates is not easy to find, nor are publishers’ records always available or informative as to distribution, and for any post 1999 distribution such “proof” is not enough. Periodical issues, and possibly some books printed and distributed in parts, may also present the complication of occurring in two “states” as depicted above (p. 36). It should go without saying that dates placed on the spine when a book or periodical is bound should not be relied upon, as this date is generally supplied by the book’s owner, a librarian, or the binder, not by the publisher. In addition, when dealing with periodicals a “publication year” may have been the financial year of the institution, not the calendar year. The Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London is probably the best known case where its volume year started in one year and ended in another (see p. 239). With monographs, dealing for example with the results of an expedition, a bound volume may include two or more separate works; not uncommonly, minor works are bound with a larger, differently dated work that they complement, or simply with other works by the same author, and the bound volume may take its binding date from only one of these. For example, the Systema Naturæ, 12th

46


edition (Linnaeus, 1766), normally has the 3-page Addenda bound in after Pars 2 (1767) of the work, and the distinct date of Pars 2 and the Addenda, later than the Aves section in Pars 1, is sometimes overlooked.

Other versions (printed facsimiles and digital scans) Printed facsimiles and digital scans are to be applauded for making scarce texts available to a wider audience than may be able to access the original work, but they must be used with caution and are not always adequate for the kind of examination regarding identity, contents, and date that may be necessary to determine true and specific dates of publication. We therefore emphasize that date research should be based on the work in its original printed form. Many printed facsimiles were reproduced from a complete and even exemplary copy of the original work, with full bibliographical identifications and descriptions of the source copy, and are accompanied by scholarly introductions and commentaries, but this is not always the case. Although there are notable exceptions, they were seldom produced with the concerns or requirements of taxonomists foremost. Some facsimiles may simply have used the nearest copy to hand, perhaps not even the first edition; in other instances two or more copies may have been selectively merged. In all of these cases the facsimile’s value as a source for accurate citation is significantly compromised, if not destroyed. And even if it was faithfully made, if the source is not identified it can be difficult, if not impossible, to evaluate the usefulness and reliability of the reproduction. Some “facsimiles”, regrettably, are apparently not even an exact photographic reproduction of the original and erroneous citations and inaccurate dating can occur when using these. The 1987 facsimile by New York University Press of The Zoology of the Voyage of the Beagle (see p. 98) included renumbered and re-sequenced plates with altered text references to them to reflect these changes. Digital scans, increasingly available on the Web, present similar questions, although here scientific and bibliographic research is at least occasionally a driving force in setting the standards, and there are several admirable efforts well underway to make the historical literature of the natural sciences available in this medium. Even here, however, works may have been scanned from less-than-ideal copies of a work. The set of Jardine’s Contributions to Ornithology (see p. 203), scanned for Google Books from the Radcliffe Science Library (Oxford University) set lacks some pages and plates, and the collation is at variance with other copies and almost certainly with the intended collation of the parts. A scanned set of a part-publication may also lack the wrappers. The set of the Biologia Centrali-Americana (see p. 140) originally scanned for the Biodiversity Heritage Library lacked these. But in that work only the wrappers confirm in which part each plate appeared. If a novelty named in this work was depicted and named in the plate caption and its text followed later the prior date of the plate determines the date of the name, but from the scanned set this cannot be discovered. A few digital versions of scientific works to have had the text re-keyed rather than scanned from the original pages, and it should be obvious that in these cases their value for bibliographical research or citation is low. Printed ephemera issued with the original work Printed ephemera issued with books or periodicals were intended to be temporary, extraneous to the work itself, and would normally be discarded when the work was bound. Such items include prospectuses, part-wrappers, periodical issue covers, notices to the subscriber about the plan of publication, instructions to the binder for placing the plates and other technical matters (but see below for specific aspects of such instructions). As may easily be imagined, they are often invaluable for understanding the publication sequence of a work, especially when it was produced in parts, but

47


by definition they are extremely scarce. Copies of a work in which these elements survive are particularly useful in determining dates; we urge that their owners, whether individuals or institutions, preserve them as they are (boxed rather than bound, if loose or in poor condition), and that, in digitizing projects, these be preferred over other copies if their condition will allow it. When imprint dates were lacking, Sherborn sometimes assessed problem publications on the basis of prospectuses or flyers in which the publishers stated the date of the first part (promised or printed) and the planned frequency of issue: see, for example, Sherborn (1895) on Shaw’s The Naturalist’s Miscellany (p. 146) and Sherborn (1898) on Temminck & Laugier’s Planches Coloriées (p. 153). This methodology is logical and laudable, and because information available from the early 19th century from reviews and library receipt dates is limited, it is likely to continue to sometimes prove necessary – always with the understanding that better “proof” may come along later. Sherborn was working before the Code, and the Code does not explicitly approve this methodology; thus, many such inferred, or deduced, dates are not strictly Code-compliant. But the Code generally endorses research to determine when an undated work can first be demonstrated to be in existence, so his work, and that more recently undertaken by others, may be useful when no better evidence is available. It may not be enough by itself, if a priority dispute must be resolved, but particularly for works that have no specified date, exercises like this are to be welcomed and the results followed until firmer evidence is forthcoming. When firm evidence is found, it should be borne in mind that changes to dates that have long been employed may raise other problems relating to priority, sometimes in cases not immediately recognized. Binding instructions Such instructions might be on a separate leaf or slip, or on a full page of a gathering (in this latter case, usually in the preliminaries), and were normally sent out with the title page and preliminaries at the completion of the work. They may provide direct information on the content or timing of a part or simply implications from which such things can be deduced.

Fig. 6 In these instructions the “Heft” refers to a part as issued and “Bogen” means gatherings. Photo permission of the Natural History Museum, London

48


Conclusions/Recommendations. A date no earlier than 1852 must be used since there is “proof” that the book was not published until sometime after 4 Aug 1852. No early date of receipt of a full copy has been noticed. B. [ECD]

Bonaparte, C.L. (1850). Conspectus Generum Avium. Vol. 1: [i-iv], 1-543. – E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Remarks on publishing details. A first part (pp. 1-272) ¹ was presented to the Academy of Sciences in Paris on 24 Jun 1850, and may have been available earlier. This work has some gatherings dates present. The second part, widely accepted as pp. 273-543, was presented to the same body on 3 Feb 1851 (Richmond, 1917: 579 fn), but Hartlaub (1851) listed the full volume from 1850 with 543 pp, and Zimmer (1926a: 69) reported a full review by Lafresnaye in very early 1851, which he thought showed early distribution. Gersdorf (1851: 75) indicated that “part” two was itself issued in smaller parts and dated pp. 465-543 from 1851. Smaller and/or different sections seem to have been distributed (Zimmer, 1926a: 68; van Rossem, 1946; Browning & Monroe, 1991: 382) although these may have been advance sheets circulated by Bonaparte himself (and thus not at those times available to all). Mathews (1925a: 12) and Sherborn (1932: cxxxiv) both mentioned Richmond’s discovery of the fact that there were two printings (“the first with slightly larger type”) – this is described in Richmond (1917: 579 fn). Reasons for considering the date problematic. The date on the last gathering (p. 537, sig. 68, dated 10 Nov 1850) shows that publication of this cannot have been before mid Nov and indeed the evidence for distribution in 1850 is not entirely conclusive, unless one accepts the information given by Hartlaub. Mathews (1925a: 13) did not accept 1850, preferring to accept Richmond’s receipt dates while doubting the page split. Zimmer supposed that both parts appeared in 1850 and van Rossem broadly agreed (although his evidence is doubtful as the dates given for the pages of vol. 5 of the Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia are not safe since pp. 149-155 of vol. 5 bear the date “Feb. 1851”). There are three reasons for not accepting Hartlaub’s view, first the date of presentation of part 2 to the Academy in Paris, second Gersdorf’s report, and third the belief that Hartlaub may sometimes have included material not actually published quite in time, but as far as we know this supposition has not been substantiated. Using split dates would also be complicated by the fact that the exact page split seems to be unknown (Mathews, 1925a). Published authorities on this case. As mentioned above Mathews (1922: 12-17) reported his conclusion that this work appeared before the first volume of Museum Heineanum and also discussed Reichenbach’s contemporary publication(s). See also Zimmer (1926a: 68-69) and Mengel (1972: 165). Conclusions/Recommendations. The volume title page is dated 1850 and if this specified date is not to be used we need sufficient evidence to show it to be incorrect, and it is clear that a substantial part, perhaps almost all of the book was out in 1850. In our view the evidence for what appeared in 1850 is inconclusive, although of course the preliminary matter (title page and dedication) were evidently not finalised and issued before 1851 (and very possibly not till 1857 – see Fig. 10); so we suggest that Hartlaub (1851)² should be followed as regards all the text pages (accepting that there may have been prior distributions of these by Bonaparte). Hartlaub’s subject was quite specifically the literature for the year 1850. B. [ECD] Notes: (1) Each full gathering in this work is of 8 pp. Part I introduces gathering dates on p. 105 (the first page of gathering 14, dated “Jan. 1850”) and these continue to p. 265 (gathering 34 dated “Mart. 1850”). What has been seen as Part II runs from gathering 35 to 68, and from “Mart. 1850” to “10 Nov. 1850”. (2) Hartlaub’s annual reports are best confirmed from other sources if possible. Quite often it appears that

75


material not sent to him soon enough was dealt with as if publication was delayed when possibly the delay was in receipt only. He also seems to have sometimes included advance copies in the year before actual publication.

Bonaparte, C.L. (“1857” = 1855-57). Conspectus Generum Avium. Vol. 2. 1-252. – E.J. Brill, Leiden, Netherlands. Remarks on publishing details. The first volume is discussed separately (above). This, the second, appeared posthumously ¹ and the title page is dated 1857. An insert, see Fig. 10, below, dates it as not earlier than 1 Oct 1857. Reasons for considering the date problematic. As explained by Zimmer (1926a: 69), E.J. Brill, now established Dutch academic publishers, had a notice printed and inserted in the volume after printing.

Fig. 10 The note inserted by E.J. Brill in volume 2. Here Brill used the phrase “ne devrait avoir lieu” [“should not have taken place”] which seems to support the other evidence that parts of this work had already circulated. Brill added Bonaparte’s death left him to publish what was finished. The volume as a whole cannot have been published earlier than 1 Oct 1857. Photo permission of the Natural History Museum, London.

Zimmer went on to mention the dates when Cabanis announced the pages that he had received (some in Jan 1855 or earlier).² It is possible to see these distributed pages as proof sheets, but Zimmer demonstrated that Bonaparte himself thought of these distributions as effecting publication. The Code (Art. 9) clearly does not accept that proofs constitute published work. If the view that these were proofs were to be upheld then, as Zimmer remarked, some of the new names would need to be attributed to those who used these names and described their subjects prior to 1 Oct 1857. No originals of the pages that Bonaparte distributed have actually been traced, but no-one seems to have suggested that the pages were dated with anything other than gathering dates (see our Glossary). Thus we conclude that these pages are either proof sheets or advance sheets. The Code, up to 1999, permits the early distribution of separates to advance the date of publication; it does not refer to advance sheets and, while not formally complete and thus more like proof sheets there seems to be no basis to treat advance sheets any differently to separates and so we accept dating content of the distributions from the dates that Cabanis reported his receipt of them. 76


Horsfield, T. & F. Moore (1854). A Catalogue of the birds of the Museum of the Hon. East-India Company. I: i-vi,¹ 1-451. – Wm. H. Allen & Co., London, U.K. Remarks on publishing details. The gatherings are of 8 pages and a signature mark appears in the centre on the direction line. Dates which are found on certain pages, usually below the normal location of the direction line, seem to be dates of completion of text segments but might be dates of type-setting.² Reasons for considering the date problematic. The gathering dates might be taken to suggest that the work was published in parts, but no other evidence for this has been found. Zimmer (1926a) apparently found no title page for vol. 1 and thought both volumes had a title page dated “1856-58”. Care is needed in citing names from this work because, although Moore intended to name all the novelties in the Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, this volume actually appeared before many of his papers therein (see Dickinson, 2004c, for an evaluation of this). Published authorities on this case. Cowan (1975), Zimmer (1926a: 307-308) and Dickinson (2004c). Conclusions/Recommendations. The imprint date of 1854 should be used and those needing a more exact date should use 8 Nov 1854 (Cowan, 1975). R. [ECD] Note: (1) Pages vii-xxx – sometimes bound in volume 1 – would appear to have been issued with vol. 2 as p. xx includes details from both volumes. (2) Pages 169 (11 Aug 1853), 248 (31 Dec 1853), 313 (18 Mar 1854), 345 (19 Apr 1854), 361 (2 May 1854), 413 (27 Jul 1854; end of Appendix I) and 423 (19 Aug 1854; end of Appendix II). Note that p. 248 is the verso of a leaf.

Horsfield, T. & F. Moore (“1856-58” = 1858). A Catalogue of the birds of the Museum of the Hon. East-India Company. II. 453-752, i-ix. – Wm. H. Allen & Co., London, U.K. Remarks on publishing details. Although not so indicated, the work is unfinished: several families of birds were not reached. The direction lines on the first pages of the gatherings have the volume number at the left and the signature mark in the centre but no dates. However, dates are shown in or near the direction line on other pages.¹ Reasons for considering the date problematic. As noted by Dickinson (2004) several major works in the second half of last century dated some names, new in this volume of the Catalogue, to the year 1856, based either on the idea that the imprint date “1856-58” implied the issue of parts or based on some kind of earlier distribution. That the latter took place is evident from Blyth (1857: 195) who referred to portions up to 649 having been received (Mark Brown in litt., 01.05.07)² but the fact that page 650 was not mentioned implies that Blyth had been sent proofs to comment upon. Richmond (1992) noted evidence of the receipt of the volume by the Asiatic Society of Bengal, and the records of various libraries suggest that they also received the volume as a single entity. Published authorities on this case. Zimmer (1926a: 307-308), Cowan (1975) and Dickinson (2004c). Conclusions/Recommendations. The date of 1858 should be used and those needing a more exact date should use 30 June 1858 (Cowan, 1975). R. [ECD] Notes: (1) Pages 521 (18 Jan 1856), 547 (12 Feb 1856), 580 (17 Mar 1856), 606 (26 Apr 1856), 633 (16 Jun 1856), 649 (5 Jul 1856), 716 (31 Jan 1857), 752 (30 Jan 1858). Note that three of these are on the verso of leaves. All seem to be where segments end and these could be dates when work on those finished or dates of type-setting. The similarity to the contemporary Conspectus of Bonaparte (see pp. 75-77) and to the Museum Heineanum of Cabanis (see pp. 80-83) can hardly be coincidental (2) The work begins a new text section on p. 650 which allows us to conclude that page 650 was blank. 109


Hume, A.O. (1873–1875). Nests and eggs of Indian birds: rough draft. 3 vols. – Office of Superintendent of Government Printing, Calcutta, India. Remarks on publishing details. Published in three “parts” with title and date on the wrappers. Part I. 1873: pp. 2 ll. (Title page; dedication), pp. 1-2 (Pref., by A. O. H.), pp. 1-236; part II. 1874: pp. 237-489+1; part III. 1875: pp. 1-3 (Postscript by A. O. H., dated “31st December 1874”), pp. 491-662. Reasons for considering the date problematic. Most copies are bound in one volume without the original wrappers and without the dated title pages for parts 2 and 3. Zimmer (1926a) reviewed the work, giving pagination and detailed the years of publication. Despite this, subsequent authors have misinterpreted the date of publication for new names that appear in the second part.¹ Published authorities on this case. Zimmer (1926a: 313) and Pittie (2009). Recommendations: The above dates should be used for the parts. R.

[APt]

Note: (1) The following new names were proposed: part I (1873): Ocyceros (p. 113); Cyanocincla (p. 226); part II (1874): Nymphæus (p. 322); Drymoipus terricolor (p. 349); Corvus pseudo-corone (p. 410); Plocëella (p. 443); Munia Jerdoni (p. 448); Pycnorhamphus (p. 469). There are no new names in part III.

Jardine, W. (1843). The natural history of the Nectariniadæ, or sunbirds. Sunbirds in Naturalists’ Library. [i-viii], ix-xv, 17-277. – Lizars, Edinburgh, U.K. Remarks on publishing details. First published as vol. XIII of the ornithological volumes in “The Naturalist’s Library”.¹ In a later edition of that series it became vol. V (Zimmer, 1926a: 330) and seems to have appeared in 1864. Reasons for considering the date problematic. Iredale (1951c: 322) wrote “The data provided by Sherborn, Palmer’s Index, Engelmann’s Index, Casey Wood’s Introduction and Zimmer’s Catalogue all proved erroneous in small details (small be it noted)” and his research has not been seriously contradicted. Iredale (1951c: 324) provided dates that he considered should be used and, for this work, listed 1843. In a second list, on p. 331 entitled “Dates of issue of first printings” he provided two columns of dates one for the Preface date, where he gave “December 1842”, and the second for a review date, of which he had none: evidently neither column provides real publication dates and so his dates on p. 324 must be seen as considered judgements. Sheets-Pyenson (1981), writing from a sociological perspective, working from some Jardine correspondence, used the date of Dec 1842 but did not detail or illustrate the exact source contradicting any of Iredale’s dates so that her information cannot easily be rediscovered. In the circumstances, as she, unlike Iredale, is a historian rather than a bibliographer, it seems at least possible that she had no more reliable information than was available to Iredale and used his “Preface date” for her publication date. Published authorities on this case. Zimmer (1926a: 324-332) and Iredale (1951c). Conclusions/Recommendations. Use the imprint date of 1843 as used by Iredale on p. 323. R. [ECD] Note: (1) Zimmer (1926a: 324-326) detailed the 40 volume series: 14 of the 40 volumes are ornithological, and he wrote “As the books appeared, they were tabulated in a list printed in the front of the volumes and given a number in the order of their appearance” and added that the final numbering in series according to the subject matter was only clarified when the 40 volume series was completed.

110


“Knip & Temminck” (“1808-1811”). See Temminck, C.J.

Latham, J. (1801). Supplementum Indicis ornithologici sive Systematis ornithologiae. i-lxxiv. – Leigh and J. & S. Sotheby, London, U.K.

Fig. 12 The 1802 reprint used a modified uncoloured image on the title page – see the all white speculum. Photo permission of the Museum für Naturkunde, Berlin

Fig. 11 Latham’s original had the depiction of the duck on the title page coloured – note the coloured speculum. Photo permission of the Natural History Museum, London

Remarks on publishing details. This volume complemented Latham’s 1790 publication Index ornithologicus, sive systema ornithologiæ; complectens avium divisionem in classes, ordines, genera, species, ipsarumque varietates: adjectis synonymis, locis, descriptionibus, & c. That provided descriptions using Linnean binomial nomenclature for the material that he had published in his English language General Synopsis of Birds. The latter was followed by two English language supplements, the second of which (Latham, 1801) seems have appeared at or at about the same date as this Supplementum to Index ornithologicus and this again provides scientific names for birds, this time those in his Englishlanguage supplements. Reasons for considering the date problematic. All known copies of the original English language Second Supplement are dated MDCCCI (Fig. 11) but a few copies seem to be dated MDCCCII, although close inspection almost always reveals the final I to have been added by hand. The specified date of 1801 was almost universally accepted for the Supplementum until 1991. Since then there have been proponents of each date. It was Browning & Monroe (1991) who suggested that 1802 should be accepted and that this date must apply to both the second Supplement and the Supplementum.

115


They based this on the fact that the English Supplement refers to exact page numbers in the Supplementum arguing that that must have appeared first, and on the idea that John Latham was new as a Fellow of the Royal Society and on that account deferred publication until he could present the Society with a copy of the work in English, which he delivered in Apr 1802. On this evidence the 1802 date was accepted in the United States of America (A.O.U., 1998), in Australia (Schodde & Mason, 1999) and, with reservations, by Dickinson (2003). Subsequent investigations have shown that the date of presentation to the Royal Society in Apr 1802 is correct and that the Linnean Society received its copy that month too. However, John Latham, the zoologist, was actually elected to the Royal Society in 1775 and it was a namesake, a physician from St. Bartholomew’s Hospital, who was elected in 1801. So it seemed improbable that a 60 year old Fellow of 26 years standing living as far away as Winchester would defer publication, and more likely that this occasion in Apr 1802 was simply his first visit to London after publication. Of the two copies of his Second Supplement he then presented only one has the date changed to MDCCCII by hand so that one may conclude that the extra digit was not added by Latham. Nor is it unreasonable to suppose that Latham had proofs of both works available to him from which he could extract page numbers thus here there is no “proof” of publication of one before the other. Two known copies of the English language Second Supplement, have the title page plate uncoloured (Fig. 12) with an MDCCCII imprint date and appear to represent a genuine later printing (Schodde et al., 2007); one of these, the Berlin copy, is probably the source of the date 1802 given by Engelmann (1846), whose listing was presumably the cause of the “corrections” made by others to 1801 title pages. Published authorities on this case. Browning & Monroe (1991). However, their acceptance of 1802 has been rejected as summarised by Schodde et al. (2010). Conclusions/Recommendations. We consider there is now insufficient support for 1802 so stay with the imprint or specified date of 1801. B. [ECD]

Laurop, C.P. & V.F. Fischer (1818). Sylvan, ein Jahrbuch für Forstmänner, Jäger und Jagdfreunde. – J.C. Kreiger, Marburg & Cassel, Germany. Remarks on publishing details. An almanac. One volume of the series, said by some to be for 1818 (“auf das Jahr 1818”) and by others to be for 1817-18, or even 1817-19, contains in pt. V an article (no. 10), which contains the original description by E. Fleischer of Falco naumanni on p. 174. Reasons for considering the date problematic. Some sources date the publication of this from 1817, which is consistent with the understanding that the almanac was published “for” the [coming] year, but this is not agreed by all sources and nor is whether this was one issue for 1818 or part of a volume covering two or even three years. Dated 1818 by Grant (1915)¹ who, by referring to “Part V”, will very likely be found, when the original is inspected, to have been referring to parts with deliberately different contents all published at once in the yearbook. However, if there is no date on the title page that is indicative of actual publication the correct date will be unresolved. Published authorities on this case. None known. Conclusions/Recommendations. Best dated 1818 until evidence is produced showing that this was in existence as a published work during 1817. B. [ECD] Note: (1) Grant (op. cit., p. 251) mentioned a reproduction of this tract by Reichenow (1898: 142-144) and a letter from Dresser (1875: 515-517), in The Ibis, which recommended rejection of the name naumanni partly on the grounds that priority was not proved: he dated it late 1818 or early 1819 and preferred the specific name cenchris

116


on the cover and that too is an “Adunanza” date. Salvadori published lists of his own publications listing them by year but without more precise dates. An article by Salvadori in vol. 6 on pp. 128-132 with an “Adunanza” [meeting] date of “15 Gennaio 1871”, and a listing from 1871 in Salvadori’s own printed list of his publications up to 1880, described three new taxa and in three different volumes of Peters’ Check-list two are dated 1871 and one, inexplicably, is dated 1870. For none of the 37 articles, between 1868 and 1887, listing Salvadori as an author have we located a reliable date of publication. Nor does Salvadori seem reliable! In his second (1900) list of his published articles he gave pp. 448-450 for the description of Collocalia marginata – and page number 448 is cited by Peters (1940), but the Biodiversity Heritage Library reveals this article to be on pp. 304-306. A separate with the pagination as used by Salvadori exists at the NMNH, Washington, D.C. (Dick Banks, in litt., 15.06.11.) and in the MNSG, Genoa (Enrico Borgi in litt., 20.06.2011). Published authorities on this case. None known to us. Conclusions/Recommendations. More research is needed here. U.

[ECD]

Atti della riunione degli Scienziati Italiani. – Various cities, Italy. Remarks on publishing details. The annual reunions of Italian scientists were held in Sep or Oct for the years 1839 to 1846 in a succession of venues: Pisa (183); Torino (1840), Firense (1841), Padova (1842), Lucca (1843), Milano (1844), Napoli (1845) and Genova (1846). After this, apparently for budget reasons there were long gaps, and eventually the title ceased. We have not determined whether, when and where a 9th Congress may have been held although it is counted since the 10th was in Sienna (1862) and the 11th, and last, in Rome (1873). The proceedings became voluminous: having started with 31 pages for the 1839 congress, over 1000 pages were issued for each of the 6th, 7th and 8th Congresses. Publication was usually in the year following the congress, but the proceedings for 1841 appeared within the year and those for 1873 in 1875. We provide a Table XXV of the limited information extracted from a nearly complete set in the Natural History Museum, London. Note that the 3rd Congress produced two volumes, the second having independent pagination and that the 7th Congress also required two volumes with most of the second volume devoted to Prince Bonaparte’s catalogue of fishes. Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. Errors in dating have occurred, for example, due to using the date of the 1844 Congress rather than the specified date from the proceedings. Published authorities on this case. None known. Conclusions/Recommendations. We believe the information in our table can be relied upon for vols. 1 to 8. B. [MDB, CV, ECD]

The Auk. – Various cities, U.S.A. Remarks on publishing details. First appeared in early 1884 (Sclater, 1897) as a quarterly due in Jan, Apr, Jul and Oct. Apart from one period in the 1990s, it has appeared reasonably regularly ever since. Day-dates were introduced in vol. 29 (1912), shown together at the end of the year (in this instance on p. 605)¹ and these, or month-dates, have continued ever since, although sometimes they were given issue by issue. In the early years (up to vol. 15) footnotes sometimes record that authors’ separates were sent out before publication (see Fig. 18). We know of and list seven cases where such preprints contained new names – see Table XXVI. We assume that all these were preprints in the

181


meaning of the Code and the dates are fully Code-compliant as a basis for advancing the date of publication.

Fig. 18 The Auk in early years issued “preprints�. This image is from an April issue and shows that the author was sent his copies five or six weeks early. Photo permission of the Natural History Museum, London

Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. While most dates of issue are within the target months delays did occur and Oct issues were occasionally published after the year end (this is true for vols. 75, 95 and 119); on the other hand the Jan issues appeared in the previous Dec in vols. 31, 33 and 54. A different period from late 1992 to 1996 saw more substantial problems. For more complete date information see Table XXVII. We mention above articles in the early years

182


where a footnote records the date of despatch, prior to publication, of the author’s copies; the dates given there have been treated as dates of publication (it is clear that these were “preprints”, but not known whether they had their own date, perhaps that shown in the later footnote). Strictly, these “preprints” are preprints in the eyes of the Code only if they have their own dates on them. A preprint of one such article by Cory (1887) has been located at Tring and examined for us by Alison Harding and Tony Statham: it is printed with the same date as later footnoted; so extrapolating from that find we presume that all these were dated in accordance with the footnotes. Published authorities on this case. None known. Conclusions/Recommendations. From 1912 look within the volume for the dates of the issues; prior to that use the imprint month and date from the last day thereof (or earlier receipt dates e.g. from our table); and accept the preprints with dates from the footnotes). B. [JS, MK] Note: (1) Day-dates would seem to have been available earlier since Foster (1892) was able to give them for articles by Lawrence in the first few volumes of The Auk.

Austral Avian Record. – London, U.K. Remarks on publishing details. Published by Gregory Mathews. Five volumes appeared in irregular issues from Jan 1912 to Jun 1927 and title pages were produced (e.g. for vols. 1 & 2 to be bound together). Several articles in this periodical deal with the results of bibliographic research. Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. There should be no problem in principle unless spine dates of bound volumes are mistakenly used. Each individual issue is dated to the day. Published authorities on this case. Mathews (1925a: 4-5) provided the pagination and date of publication for each issue. Conclusions/Recommendations. Follow Mathews (1925a). R.

[ECD]

Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde (1848-1854). – Amsterdam, The Netherlands. Remarks on publishing details. This periodical has continued until the present day (eventually becoming Contributions to Zoology from the University of Amsterdam) and, drawing on a leaflet from the publishers, listing the first 26 issues, we add two more and set out the details on our Table XXVIII. The issues were more “occasional publications” than periodicals as there was no fixed interval between them. Volume 1 was made up of six afleveringen, published by M. Westerman & Zoon, Amsterdam with a volume title page dated “1848-1854”. This volume has presented some problems of dating and this is the focus of this “entry”. Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. There has been considerable confusion over the dates of the six issues (afleveringen) making up vol. 1. In two cases Sherborn found dates quoted by Carus & Engelmann to be contradicted by dates on pages¹ and this appears to have convinced him to use Jentink’s data (and so far as the dates of formal publication are concerned he seems to have been correct).

183


Fig. 19 Sherborn’s tabulation of the Bijdragen information from Jentink. The two central columns are red in the original and look paler here. Photo permission of the Natural History Museum, London

184


Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoology at Harvard College, in Cambridge. – Cambridge, Massachusetts, U.S.A. Remarks on publishing details. Many numbers contained just one large article, others contained two or more linked to the same expedition or linked for other reasons. The first volume covered the period 1863-69, and included 13 "numbers", paginated consecutively and issues of the Bulletin have apparently always been given page numbers running consecutively through the volume. The first fifteen volumes have been examined, apart from a few missing numbers, and they present serious dating problems. Volumes clearly overlapped in their periods of issue: for example the evidence shows vol. 7 to have appeared between about Jul 1880 and Aug 1884 while vol. 8 probably began to appear in early 1881 and was completed that year. Covers when found show that short articles were sometimes issued together, with a shared cover. In vol. 3, nos. 15-16, dated respectively Apr 1875 and Jun 1876, and relating to the exploration of Lake Titicaca, have just the month date “July, 1876” on the front cover. Dates appear close to the end of most articles but these, judged by the evidence of the place names that sometimes appear with them, are the dates authors finished their articles and submitted them; they are not publication dates. As an example the last page of vol. 1 has "Cambridge, November 16, 1869", but over the years Washington DC, Chicago, Key West, Philadelphia, New Haven, Conn., and Newport, R.I. all appear, as does Eton College! From vol. 16 (1888) month-dates are given for each article, in the list of contents, and month-dates seem to have remained the norm until quite recently (a day-date is apparent on no. 4 of vol. 148 and such dates have been maintained since). The first fifteen volumes were reproduced by the Kraus Reprint Corporation, New York about 1967. Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. It is not safe to presume that an article in one volume must be later than an article in the preceding volume. What occurred with vols. 7 and 8 was repeated in later years. It is thus necessary to seek the original issue and to draw on the list of contents. Before such lists appeared, in vol. 16, one must seek the covers and if they are unavailable or unhelpful explore what dates are present within the work. Published authorities on this case. None yet discovered. Conclusions/Recommendations. Names introduced in any article in the first fifteen volumes may well require further research as to when the article was first available as a published work. U. [ECD, DF]

Bulletin of the Raffles Museum. – Singapore. Remarks on publishing details. Initiated in Sep 1928. Twenty-nine issues appeared before a change of title, in Oct 1961: no. 30 being the first Bulletin of the National Museum, State of Singapore. No. 26 which had been delayed appeared in Feb 1961, after nos. 27, 28 and 29. Sometimes two issues appeared in a year, but none appeared between Sep 1941 and Oct 1947 due to the war, and no issues appeared in 1948, 1953-54, 1957-59. Vol. 15, the monograph on Malaysian mammals, published in 1940, was later “Reproduced by photo-litho at the Government Printing Office, Singapore, March, 1958." (Lord Cranbrook in litt., 5 Feb 2009). Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. Ng et al. (1994) were not able to take full account of information on the covers. For example on 8 and 9, respectively dated Dec 1933 and Dec 1934 there are printers’ notations reading “400 – 14782 – 1/34” and “17262 – 400 – 2/35”. These suggest print runs of 400 copies and printing, or the orders being received for printing, in Jan 1934 and Feb 1935 respectively. As no. 21 has 12/49 on the back, but is dated Jan 1950, it is most probable that these back-cover dates are the dates of printing.

191


On this basis publication may be assumed to have been in these months or when the cover was printed to display a later date, as in nos. 21 and 27, the later date. Back-cover dates were found on 19 of the issues from 8 through 35 for which these covers could be found and read; in a 20th issue (vol. 11) the printer’s notation is on the last printed page. For nos. 6, 8, 9, 23, 25, 28, 30 and 32 the cover dates have the effect of dating the volume to the following year; several others show delays of a few months. Published authorities on this case. In preparation for this entry the work of Ng et al. (1994) was updated by Low & Tan (2009).¹ Table XXXI draws heavily on the fuller table in their work but, at the request of the compilers of this book, includes some comments and further findings on the “resolved” dates proposed by Low & Tan.² Conclusions/Recommendations. Low & Tan suggested for several volumes, e.g. vol. 10, that the printing date should be accepted although a month earlier than a “specified date”. However, in such a case one should accept the “specified date” as the date of printing does not disprove a later date of publication. They also offered dates for vols. 6 and 10 which can be updated based on new evidence as indicated in our column of “Compiler’s comments”. B. [TSH] Notes: (1) Access to Low & Tan (2009), in electronic form, from the museum’s web-site, allows PDFs to be downloaded of all articles affected by a correction of the year-date of publication. (2) The table also draws on a set with many covers held by E.C. Dickinson and the compiler’s comments, shared with TSH, are his.

Figs. 21 and 22 The two successive title pages at the front of Bulletin vol. X. The volume title page, a half-title, is dated 1876 and is followed by the title page giving the subject of the volume. This is dated 1875. Both photographs by permission of the Natural History Museum, London

192


The Humming Bird (1891-1895). – London, U.K. Remarks on publishing details. A somewhat eccentric and eclectic periodical.¹ First published in Jan 1891 and monthly issues appeared that year and the next. However, vol. III (1893) appeared quarterly with issues in Mar, Jun, Sep and Dec. Vols. IV and V also appeared quarterly and the Dec 1895 issue was the last – and announced as such. Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. Most difficulty has arisen over the exact timetable of the issue of the parts of the book called Genera of Humming Birds which appeared in conjunction with issues of this periodical (although in 1895 the book was also made available as a complete work). We have discussed this under “Books” (see p. 78). Not all Boucard’s new hummingbirds were described in the book; some are in the periodical (see vol. 1: 17-18, Mar 1891; pp. 25-26, Apr 1891; p. 43, Jun 1891; pp. 52-53, Jul 1891; vol. 2: 73-89, Sep 1892; vol. 3: 6-10, Mar 1893). A parrot Pionus bridgesi (vol. 1 p. 7 Apr 1891), a bird of paradise Semioptera Gouldi (vol. 1, p. 43, Jun 1891), a tanager Ramphocelus Chrysopterus (vol. 1, p. 53, Jul 1891), and a few new insects, were also described in this periodical. Published authorities on this case. The Zoological Record for 1893, 1894 and 1895. Conclusions/Recommendations. The above details, supplemented by a knowledge of what is in Boucard’s Genera of Humming Birds should suffice to date all his new names from either his periodical or his book. R. [ECD] Note: (1) Adolpe Boucard was a principal of Boucard, Pottier & Co. of High Holborn, who were buyers and sellers of objects of natural history and curios of many kinds and the periodical reflects his varied interests.

Ibis [from mid 1982; previously The Ibis]. – London (later elsewhere) U.K. Remarks on publishing details. Fourteen Series, of six annual volumes each, cover the period from 1859 to 1942. The 1943 volume picked up from there and was thus numbered 85 and annual volumes have appeared since, with occasional supplements and an extra “Centenary” volume (103b), which appeared in three issues, dated 1 Mar 1960, 1 May 1962 and 1 Sep 1963. For early history see Sclater (1897). Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. Precise dates of publication were provided from 1913 through 1990 with the set of “prelims” including the volume title page (see Table XL). Dates before and after this period must be based on the Jan, Apr, Jul and Oct imprint dates (except for the various Supplements up to 1912 and after 1990) in each case dating from the last day of that month. No case of an issue appearing after its specified month is known to us. Mistaken citations to The Ibis sometimes appear which relate to its re-publication of the content of the Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club; for example Peters (1960: 30) cited Pyrrhulauda harrisoni from The Ibis, 1901, instead of a 1900 issue of the Bulletin. Published authorities on this case. None known. Conclusions/Recommendations. Where exact dates are available they should be relied on, in all other cases the last day of the given month must be used, except where library receipt stamps prove earlier dates. R. [ECD] Note: The January 1999 issue (vol. 141, no. 1) is known to have been distributed before the end of Dec 1998 (George Sangster, in litt., Nov 2009). The same applies to vol. 152, no. 1 of “January 2010”, about which the British Ornithologists’ Union included a note

201


in the next issue on p. 414 stating that the “print and despatch date” was 14 Dec 2009. A similar note relating to the Jan 1999 issue would be helpful because, again, a new taxon was included and a correct date for that is important. See Recommendation 21F of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1999: 23).

India Review and Journal of Foreign Science and the Arts. – Calcutta [Kolkata], India. Remarks on publishing details. First issued in mid 1836 (dates seem to first appear in no. 5 in Aug). Three volumes are supposed to have been published (but we have seen only two). Vol. 1 contained 12 issues totalling 694 pp plus an index, the last issue dating from about 15 Mar 1837. Seven original articles by Brian Hodgson on Nepalese birds appeared in vols.1 & 2.¹ Edited by Frederick Corbyn. Reasons for considering the dates of at least some issues problematic. Copies of issues examined seem to have had no title pages and so may have had covers. Further slight, but not unusual confusion flows from the volumes not each relating to a calendar year. The dates found appear on pages towards the middle of each issue which look like title pages for a regular component of the whole issue. If covers had their own dates they might be later than these “segment” dates. Published authorities on this case. The printed details from the centre of the issues from vol. 1, no. 7 to vol. 2 no. 2, were listed by Dickinson (2009) but a fuller list is given below.² Conclusions/Recommendations. Follow Dickinson (2009) or the list below. B.

[ECD]

Notes: (1) Hodgson’s last two articles came into the hands of Guérin-Méneville as one 8 page pamphlet (see Revue Zoologique, 1838, p. 115) – perhaps as an author’s separate. (2) The following pages of this kind have been observed: vol. I: p. 177 (1 Aug 1836), p. 225 (1 Sep 1836), p. 286 (1 Oct 1836), p. 334 (15 Nov 1836), p. 391 (15 Dec 1836), p. 459 (15 Jan 1837), p. 594 (15 Feb 1837), p. 671 (15 Mar 1837); vol. II: p. 52 (15 Apr 1837) and then on the 15ᵗ� of every month till Mar 1838 (pp. 128, 195, 272, 343, 392, 465, 518, 563, 620, 674).

L’Institut. – Paris, France. Remarks on publishing details. Began on 18 May 1833 as a weekly and published 33 Saturday issues that year, subsequently the frequency of issue changed to monthly and back to weekly again when, on 3 May 1838 Thursdays were publication days. By about 1840 it also split into two, with a first stream that included natural history and a second dealing with history and philosophy, etc. It continued until at least 1875. All issues examined are dated to the day. Full details not explored. L'Institut. Journal des Académies et des Sociétés scientifiques de la France et de l'étranger, 1833 only. L'Institut. Journal général des Sociétés et des Travaux scientifiques de la France et l'étranger, 1834-1869. In its early years this periodical did not include original articles, but it certainly did later (e.g. in 1875). It reported on meetings held by learned societies; in some cases prompt publication by L’Institut came ahead of publication by such bodies, and some descriptions are to be found herein that must be cited as they have priority (e.g. the ten names introduced in Lesson, 1834). We have examined one case where names were published here and in the Compte Rendu hebdomadaires des séances de l’Académie des Sciences and found that the latter appeared first, each such case will need separate examination.¹

202


d’Orbigny, A. & N.F.A.A. Lafresnaye, 1838. Synopsis avium ab Alcide d’Orbigny in ejus per Americam meridionalem itinere, collectarum et ab ipso viatore necnon. – Magasin de Zoologie, 8: 1-32. Dresser, H.E., 1875. [Letter to the Editor.] – The Ibis (3) 5: 515-517. Duncan, F.M., 1937. On the dates of publication of the Society’s Proceedings, 1859 -1926. – Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London, 71-83. duPont, J.E., 1971. Philippine Birds. i-x, 1-480. – Delaware Museum of Natural History, Greenville, Delaware. Eck, S. & C. Quaisser. 2004. Verzeichnis der Typen der Vogelsammlung des Museums für Tierkunde in den Staatlichen Naturhistorischen Sammlungen Dresden. – Zoologische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde in Dresden, 54: 233-316. Edwards, M.A., 1976. The library and scientific publications of the Zoological Society of London: Part II, pp. 253-267. In: The Zoological Society of London 1826-1976 and beyond. – Symposia of the Zoological Society of London, 40. Edwards, M. A. et al. (eds.), 1966-1996. [Neave’s] Nomenclator zoologicus. A list of the names of the genera and subgenera in zoology from the tenth edition of Linnaeus 1758 to the .... (etc.) – The Zoological Society of London, London. Vol. 6 (1946-1955): [i-x], 1-329 (with A.T. Hopwood) (1966); vol. 7 (1956-1965): [i-vi], 1-374 (with H.G. Vevers); vol. 8 (1966-1977): [i-vi], 1-620 (with M.A. Tobias); vol. 9 (1978-1994): [i-iv], 1-747 (with P. Manly & M.A. Tobias). Ekama, C., 1886. Fondation Teyler. Catalogue de la bibliothèque. Tome I. Sciences exactes et naturelles. Livr. 3. 181-309 (Ornithologie pp. 210-230). – Héritiers Loosjes, Harlem. Engelmann, W., 1846. Bibliotheca Historico-Naturalis. Verzeichniss der Bücher über naturgeschichte welche in Deutschland, Scandinavien, Holland, England, Frankreich, Italien und Spanien in den Jahren 1700-1846 erscheinen sind. Erster Band. i-viii, 1-786. – Leipzig. [A Supplement covered the years 1846-1860 – see Carus & Engelmann (1861); for the sequels to that see Taschenberg (1887-1923).] Esaki, T., 1935. Zur Einführung in Philipp Franz von Siebolds Fauna Japonica. 1-54, pl. 51-58. – Shokubutsu – Bunken Kankokai, Tokyo. Evans, A.H., 1885. Aves, pp. 1-68. In: The Zoological Record for 1882, being Volume the Twentyfirst of the Record of Zoological Literature. – The Zoological Society London. Evans, D., 2006. Letter to the Editor. Ornithologie d’Angola. – Society for the History of Natural History Newsletter 87: 12-13. Evans, D., 2007. Letter to the Editor. Bocage corrections. – Society for the History of Natural History Newsletter 88: 13. Evenhuis, N.L., 1990. Dating of the livraisons and volumes of d’Orbigny’s Dictionnaire universel d’Histoire naturelle. – Bishop Museum Occasional Papers, 30: 219-225. Evenhuis, N.L., 1997. Litteratura Taxonomica Dipterorum (1758-1930). 2 vols. – Backhuys Publishers, Leiden [1. A-K pp. i-ix, 1-426; 2. L-Z pp. 427-867]. [This work deals with books and prints, but not journals. A few works that deal with ornithology are reported upon (e.g. King, 1826, Schomburgk, 1847-49).] Evenhuis, N., 2003a. Dating and publication of the Encyclopédie Méthodique (1782-1832), with special reference to the parts of the Histoire Naturelle and details of the Histoire Naturelle des Insectes. – Zootaxa, 166: 1-48.

262


Evenhuis, N.L., 2003b. Publication and dating of the journals forming the Annals and Magazine of Natural History and the Journal of Natural History. – Zootaxa, 385: 1-68. Evenhuis, N.L., 2008. Preliminary catalog of dating sources for zoological works. – Bishop Museum Technical Report, 47: 1-172. Ferguson, J.A., 1941. Bibliography of Australia. 1: 1-540. – Angus & Robertson, Sydney. Fletcher, J.J., 1896. On the dates of publication of the early volumes of the Society’s publications. – Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales, (2) 10: 533-536. Foster, L.S., 1892. Bibliographies of American Naturalist. IV. The published writings of George Newbold Lawrence, 1844-1891. – Bulletin of the United States National Museum 40: i-xi, 1-105. Freeman, R.B., 1973. Offprints of Darwin’s Climbing Plants, 1865. – Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 6 (4): 293. Froriep, L.F., 1821. Abbildungen von Vögeln. Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und heilkunde. Cols. 20-22. – Erfurt. Froriep, L.F., 1822. Abbildungen von Vögeln. Notizen aus dem Gebiete der Natur- und heilkunde. Cols. 130-132. – Erfurt. Gaskell, P., 1972. A new introduction to bibliography. – Oxford University Press, London, i-xx, 1-428. [Reprinted with corrections, 1974. pp. i-xxiv, 1-438]. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, I., 1838a. Notice sur trois nouveaux genres d’oiseaux de Madagascar. – Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences, Paris 6: 440-444. Geoffroy St. Hilaire, I., 1838b. Nouveaux genres d’oiseaux de Madagascar. – L’Institut, 6 (226): 127-128. Gersdorf, E.G., 1851. Leipziger Repertorium der deutschen und ausländischen Literatur. Neunter Jahrgang, Vierte Band, pp. 75-76. Gertz, O., 1940. Kungl. Fysiografiska Sällskapet i Lund 1772-1940. Historisk överblick och personförteckningar. 1-461. – Håhan Ohlssons Boktryckeri, Lund. Giebel, C.G.A., 1872-77. Thesaurus ornithologiae: repertorium der gesammten ornithologischen Literatur und Nomenclator sämmtlicher Gattungen und Arten der Vögel. 3 vols. – F.A. Brockhaus, Leipzig. [Vol. 1: i-viii, 1-868 (1872); vol. 2: i-vi, 1-787 (1875); vol. 3: i-vi, 1-861 (1877).] Gill, F. & M. Wright, 2006. Birds of the World. Recommended English names. i-[xii], 1-259. – Princeton University Press, Princeton, New Jersey. Gladwin, T.W., 2006. John James Audubon (1785-1851) and William Swainson (1789-1855) in Hertfordshire. – Transactions of the Hertfordshire Natural History Society, 38 (2): 218-222. Gonzales, P.C., 1983. Birds of Catanduanes (Revised Edition). – Zoological Papers: National Museum (Manila), 2: 1-125. Goodwin, G.H., Jr., 1957. A catalogue of papers concerning the dates of publication of natural history books. Third supplement. – Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 3 (4): 165-174. Goodwin, G.H., Jr., W.T. Stearn & A.C. Townsend, 1962. A catalogue of papers concerning the dates of publication of natural history books. Fourth supplement. – Journal of the Society for the Bibliography of Natural History, 4 (1): 1-19. Grant, C.H.B., 1915. On a collection of birds from British East Africa and Uganda, presented to the British Museum by Capt. G.P. Cosens. Part II. Accipitriformes – Cypseli. – The Ibis, (10) 3: 235-316.

263


GLOSSARY Reading one definition here will often require that another be consulted; expect to have to search! Items marked # are definitions used in the Glossary of the Code (I.C.Z.N., 1996). Our definitions here relate to works in Western languages not with languages reading from right to left (for which the reader must adjust). 1/up: our abbreviation meaning numbered continuously from page 1; may apply to whole volumes, to issues or to articles within an issue. May also be used to refer to secondary pagination when preprints or separates are made available (see, for example, Mémoires de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg p. 215). Advance sheets: pages supplied by the printer and put into circulation, usually by an author, not demonstrably proof sheets and lacking their own date of publication but circulated ahead of general publication. The Code needs to address these. There are arguments for not regarding such circulation as publication, but if the information was made known the result of non-acceptance is that a name rapidly published by one of those circulated must be assigned authorship based thereon (as can occur if proof sheets lead to a name being adopted early). The sheets issued early for the Proceedings of the United States National Museum when dated, carried dates that were probably dates of printing (see p. 238), and are not preprints, in the meaning of the Code, nor are they “advance sheets” in the meaning of this Glossary; they are, instead, separates distributed in advance: but like advance sheets they should be dated on the basis of the evidence of publication. Asterisk: a typographic symbol 1) used as a signature mark singly or in multiples for preliminary or end matter; also, in the 19th century when numbers replaced letters as signature marks, attached to a signature number to indicate subsequent leaves after the first, which is marked with the number alone; 2) attached to page or plate numbers to indicate an insertion; when the insertion was an addition, the number with an asterisk usually follows the same number without one, this is similar to the use of “bis” after a number in French works; when the insertion is a cancellation, the page/plate bearing a number with an asterisk is meant to replace the same-numbered page/plate without one. Sometimes the unchanged page number may be reused. See also Replacement leaf, and Cancellans. Avant la lettre (also, a.l.l.): (French) literally, before the letter; referring to printed illustrations, it means before the caption and/or plate number has been added to the image on a copper-plate or lithographic stone; the abbreviation “a.l.l.” is sometimes explicitly noted on such a print, which may be considered a proof copy of the printed illustration. Bis (Latin, used in French): a term meaning “second” attached to a page/plate number to indicate an insertion in a numerical sequence – usually the addition of material not accounted for in the original pagination or numeration. Comment: we use the German term ’bis’ (= up to, until) once. Bleed-through: printing ink or colouring pigment, whether in the text or an illustration, that seeps through the paper and is visible from the other side. Board(s): see Cover. Broadsheet: a printing format in which a sheet of paper is printed as a single leaf, usually on one side only; usually but not necessarily large, depending on the size of the sheet. Camera lucida (Latin): literally “light room”; an optical device designed to reflect an image onto a drawing surface. In book illustrations it was sometimes used to reproduce illustrations in a smaller size.

285


Cancellans (plural: cancellantia): (Latin) a corrected leaf or set of leaves that replaces a cancellandum, usually bearing an asterisk or other symbol after the page number; also called a replacement leaf. Cancellandum (plural: cancellanda): (Latin) one or more leaves that were (or were meant to be) deleted or replaced, usually to correct significant textual rather than typographical errors; also called a replaced leaf. Catchword: a word printed at the right end of the direction line on a page showing the first word of the next page, intended to assist the type-setter in sequencing the pages of type so as to impose them correctly in the forme for printing. Censor’s approval: see Imprimatur. Chain lines: in hand-made (laid, q.v.) paper, the main wires in the paper-making mould; when the rectangular mould is held for use, the chain lines run vertically, parallel to the shorter sides of the frame; they are usually slightly thicker than the wire lines, and usually about an inch apart; the web of machine-made (wove, q.v.) paper may be designed to imitate chain lines. Chase: a rectangular metal frame containing the type-pages of the forme in the bed of the press. Colophon: originally (in the manuscript era and in 15th century printed books) a statement at the end of the text giving the author, title, date, and sometimes the maker (for printed books, the printer) of the work; this information subsequently was moved to a title page, and the colophon as such disappeared. In modern times it has been revived as a statement providing additional publication details, usually on the last page of the book, and usually technical information (the printer if distinct from the publisher on the title page, the type face, the paper stock, the fact of stereotyping, etc.); it may sometimes include a date of publication (for example see p. 41 of one in Tori). Collation: the sequence of gatherings and their signature marks in a printed work; it is expressed in a concise notational formula which accounts for all of the letterpress contents (not plates) of the work, including blank pages, unsigned leaves or gatherings, cancels, and errors in the signature sequence. Conjugate (adj., noun: conjugacy): applied to the leaves on either side of a spine (sewing) fold that are physically connected to each other, being part of the same sheet. For example in a simple folio format the two leaves into which the printed sheet is folded and sewn are conjugate. In smaller formats like quarto and octavo, as well as in quired folios with several bi-fold sheets stacked inside each other, there will be multiple pairs of conjugate leaves in a gathering, but the leaves in any one pair are not conjugate with those in another pair. Copper-engraving: one of several intaglio processes for incising lines on a sheet of copper to create images for the purpose of printing multiple copies; also, the print itself produced by such a process. See also Engraving, Intaglio. Copyright statement: a notice of ownership of the work – literally, the right to print copies – after registering it with an official body, usually printed on the verso of the title page; the requirement to include such a notice, though not the concept itself, is a 19th century innovation, varying by country. Corrigenda# (Latin): a list of typographical corrections to the printed text, usually appended at the end of the work. See also Errata. Countermark: in a sheet of hand-made (laid, q.v.) paper, a design attached to the wires of the mould giving the name of the mill or maker, and sometimes a year of manufacture, usually placed in the middle of one half of the full sheet opposite the watermark on the other half; the web of machine-made (wove) paper may be designed to include a countermark.

286


Cover: 1) for books, an external protection, whether a binding or a casing, that may be hard (called boards, originally of wood, but in modern times a thick, pressed pulp material) or limp (originally of un-supported vellum, now a thick, stiff paper, e.g., paperbacks); the cover is not part of the printed work but is attached after the sheets have been printed, folded, and sewn (or glued); 2) for journal issues, pamphlets, preprints, and separates, an external protection, usually paper, bearing printed identification of the text within. This latter is the use for which the ICZN (1961: 21 - Recommendation 21C) urged librarians not to “remove covers that bear information relative to dates of publication and the content of the work or its parts, or to the dates of their receipt in the library”. We do not use this term for the paper provided to contain the parts of part-works; for this see Wrapper. Deckle: the frame that fits on top of the mould in hand-made (“laid”) paper; most commonly used in the term “deckle edge”, referring to the rough, slightly irregular edges of the sheet before trimming (a routine part of the binding process, after folding and sewing the printed gatherings, especially along the head edge to minimize the infiltration of dust and along the fore-edge to facilitate turning the leaves); untrimmed deckle edges can allow inferences about the original size of the sheet. Direction line: the bottom-most line of type on a printed page, distinct from the text proper, that may contain 1) the signature mark (on the rectos of the first half of the leaves in a gathering); 2) a date, called a gathering date (usually on the recto of the first leaf of the gathering); 3) the volume and sometimes the part in which the gathering is to be bound (usually on the recto of the first leaf of the gathering); 4) a catchword in those older works that employ them (on every page); 5) in some 20th century books the page number (on every page); and 6) a press figure (usually on the verso of the leaf) q.v. Duodecimo: a printing format in which a sheet of paper is printed with 12 pages on each side and folded to form a 12-leaf (24-page) gathering; the position of the watermark and the direction of the chain lines are variable, depending on various impositions and methods of folding; usually rather small; abbreviated as 12mo or 12ᵒ. Edges: the outer boundaries of the sheet, the board (cover) or, most commonly, the printed leaf, gathering, or text-block; at the top is the head edge, the outer-most is the fore-edge, and at the bottom is the tail edge. (The inner-most is not an edge; see Margin, and Gutter.) The edges are normally trimmed as part of the binding process to create a text-block that when closed resists the infiltration of dust and when opened facilitates turning the leaves; they may be gilt or decorated (stained, sprinkled, marbled, incised, etc.). Edition: all of the copies of a publication printed from a specific setting of type; in the hand-press period, once the desired number of copies of each sheet is printed the type is broken down and returned to the type cases for re-use, and the edition is over. An edition may include more than one state of the text, if minor corrections are made to the type-setting during the press run of a sheet; more than one issue, if some of the printed sheets remain unsold and are distributed at a later date; and more than one printing (impression), if the type is kept standing for later press runs. See also Stereotyping and Electrotyping. Electrotyping: invented in the 1830s, a method of producing a copper mould of a page or whole forme of type, which when filled with type-metal replicates the original type-setting for use in subsequent printings of a text, as needed; this extends an edition and does not create a new edition. End matter: printed content following the text proper that may include an index, colophon, and other material, usually paginated and signed as a continuation of the text and printed last. French books almost always put the table of contents, either in lieu of or in addition to an index, in this position. See, by contrast, Preliminary matter.

287


End-leaf: one or more blank leaves supplied by the binder at the front and back of the text-block, not part of the printed text produced by the printer; the leaf pasted to the inside of the cover is called the front/back paste-down end-leaf, the next is the front/back free end-leaf, and then, if present, the front/back fly-leaf. The term “fly-leaf” is more commonly but imprecisely used for any free end-leaves. Engraving: a method for creating an illustration, or the resulting illustration itself, by incising lines into a piece of metal; although technically appropriate only for the process of carving the lines by hand, it is often used to refer collectively to all intaglio processes, including, for example, etching and aquatint, in which the lines are created by exposing the surface of the metal to an acid. Engraving (or etching) may also be used for illustrated title pages, distinct from a letterpress title page. Errata (Latin): a list of typographical errors in the printed text to be corrected, usually appended at the end of the work. See also Corrigenda. Fascicle: in part-publication a gathering or group of gatherings (or plates) issued individually over time, often in a paper wrapper identifying the part number, and intended cumulatively to form a complete work. First Reviser#: “The first author to subsequently cite names (including different original spellings of the same name) or nomenclatural acts published on the same date and to select one of them to have precedence over the other(s). See Article 24.” First state: see State. Fly-leaf: see End-leaf. Folio: a printing format in which a sheet of paper is printed with two pages on each side and folded once down the middle, forming two leaves (four pages); the watermark is positioned in the middle of one of the leaves, with the chain lines running parallel to the longer sides of the leaf; usually but not necessarily rather large, depending on the size of the sheet; abbreviated as fᵒ or 2ᵒ. Format: the structure of a printed work as defined by the gatherings’ constituent leaves; a sheet folded once producing two leaves (four pages) is a folio, folded a second time to make four leaves (eight pages) it is a quarto, and so on. The converse, however, does not necessarily hold true: since a gathering may be made up of more (or less) than one sheet by quiring, half-sheet imposition, etc., the number of leaves in a gathering is not always indicative of the printing format and must be analysed in combination with the location of the watermark and the direction of the chain lines in the paper. See Folio, Quarto, Octavo, and Duodecimo. Note also that, although a normally large sheet of paper printed and folded as a folio will produce a relatively large book, in the hand-press period formats did not necessarily translate to any particular size; a folio printed on a small sheet produces a small book but is still a folio. Forme: the pages of set type comprising all of the pages intended to be printed on one side of a sheet of paper, as positioned in the bed of the press to run in the correct sequence when folded into the intended format. Fount (font): a set of type in a particular size and style; see Type fount (font). Foxing: brownish or discoloured spots of varying sizes in a sheet or leaf of paper, thought to be caused by impurities (mould or specks of iron) in either the rags or the water used to make the paper; generally common to an entire paper stock when present, but visible to greater or lesser degrees in different copies of a publication depending on each one’s exposure to conducive environmental conditions, especially heat and humidity.

288


INDEX OF BOOKS Titles with a T after them indicate an accompanying table on the CD-ROM A Catalogue of the birds of the Museum of the Hon. East-India Company. [Horsfield & Moore] 109 A century of birds from the Himalaya Mountains. [Gould] 94 A history of North American Birds. Land Birds. [Baird, Brewer & Ridgway] 72 A history of the birds of Ceylon. [Legge] 117 A History of the Birds of Europe, including all the species inhabiting the Western Palæarctic Region. [Dresser (& Sharpe)] T 89 A manual of ornithology of the United States and of Canada. [Nuttall] 127 A monograph of the birds of prey (Order Accipitriformes). [Swann & Wetmore] T 151 A monograph of the Jacamars and Puffbirds or families Galbulidae and Bucconidae. [Sclater] 143 A monograph of the Nectariniidae or family of sun-birds. [Shelley] 147 A Monograph of the Ramphastidae, or Family of Toucans. [Gould] 95, 101 A Monograph of the Trochilidae, or family of Humming-birds. [Gould] 99 A Monograph of the Trochilidae, or family of Humming-birds. Supplement. [Gould] 103 A Monograph of the Trogonidae, or Family of Trogons. [Gould] 96, 101 A Synopsis of the Birds of Australia, and the adjacent islands. [Gould] 97 A synoptical list of the Accipitres (Diurnal Birds of Prey). [Swann] 151 Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Zoologie und vergleichenden Anatomie. [Sch;egel] 141 Aggiunte alla Ornitologia della Papuasia e delle Molucche. [Salvadori] 139, 218 An Introduction to the birds of Australia. [Gould] 99 An introduction to the Trochilidae, or family of Humming-birds. [Gould] 101 Anatomical and Zoological Researches: ... expeditions to Western Yunnan in 1868 and 1875. [Anderson] 69 Animals in menageries. [Swainson] 150 Atlas zu der Reise im nördlichen Afrika von Eduard Rüppell – Vögel. [Cretzschmar] 84 Avium Systema Naturale. Das natürliche System der Vögel ... [Reichenbach] 133 Beiträge zur Naturgeschichte von Brasilien. [Wied] 164 Biologia Centrali-Americana. Aves. [Salvin & Godman] T 140 Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. VI. [Sharpe] 145 Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. XX. [Salvadori] 140 Catalogue of the Birds in the British Museum. XXVI. [Sharpe & Ogilvie-Grant] 145 Catalogue of the Birds in the Museum [of the] Asiatic Society. [Blyth] 74 Catalogue of the birds of the Peninsular of India ... [Jerdon] 112, 213 Catalogue of the birds of the tropical islands of the Pacific Ocean in the collection of the British Museum. [Gray] 104 Catalogue of the Genera and Subgenera of Birds contained in the British Museum. [Gray] 104 Catalogue of the specimens and drawings of Mammalia and Birds of Nepal and Thibet … [Gray & Gray] 105 Centurie zoologique, ou choix d’animaux rares, nouveaux ou imparfaitement connus. [Lesson] T 118 303


Check-list of Birds of the World. [Peters] Conspectus Generum Avium. [Bonaparte] Dictionnaire universel d’histoire naturelle. [d'Orbigny] Die Singvögel als Fortsetzung de vollständigsten Naturgeschichte ... [Reichenbach] Die Vögel Afrikas. [Reichenow] Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna. [Hartert] Die Vögel der paläarktischen Fauna. Ergänzungsband. [Hartert & Steinbacher] Die Vogelarten der Erde. [Wolters] Die vollständigste Naturgeschichte der Tauben und taubenartigen Vögel. [Reichenbach] Encyclopédie d'histoire naturelle ou traité complet de cette science etc. [Chenu] Exotic ornithology, containing figures and descriptions of new or rare species of American birds. [Sclater & Salvin] T Expédition dans les parties centrales de l’Amérique du Sud ... Oiseaux. [Des Murs in Castelnau] Fasciculi Malayenses: ... an expedition to Perak and the Siamese Malay States, 1901-1902. Birds. [Ogilvie-Grant] Fauna Boreali-Americana; or the Zoology of the northern parts of British America. [Swainson & Richardson.] Fauna Japonica. Aves. [Temminck & Schlegel] T Galerie des Oiseaux. [Vieillot & Oudart] T Gemeinnütziges Hand- und Hilfsbuch der Naturgeschichte. [Gloger] Genera Avium. Passeres. Fam. Eurylæmidae. [Hartert] Genera of humming birds, being also a Complete Monograph of these birds. [Boucard] General Zoology. [Shaw, later Stephens] Getreue Abbildungen naturhistorischer Gegenstände in Hinsicht ... [Bechstein] Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie. Continuatio VIII - XII …[Reichenbach] Handbuch der speciellen Ornithologie. Die Vögel. [Reichenbach] Hawaiian Almanac and Annual. [Thrum] Histoire naturelle des Colibris ... [Lesson] Histoire naturelle des Îles Canaries. Zoologie. Ornithologie Canarienne. [Webb et al.] Histoire naturelle des oiseaux de l’Amérique septentrionale. [Vieillot] Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux de Paradis et des Épimaques. [Lesson] Histoire naturelle des Oiseaux-Mouches ou Colibris, constituant la famille des Trochilidés. [Mulsant & Verreaux] Histoire Naturelle des Oiseaux-Mouches. [Lesson] Histoire naturelle générale des Pigeons. [Temminck & Knip] Historia fisica y politica de Chile. [Gay] Icones ad Synopsin Avium hucusque rite cognitarum / Continuatio VIII-XII. [Reichenbach] Icones Avium ... [Gould] Iconographie des pigeons non-figurées par Mme. Knip ... [Bonaparte] Iconographie Ornithologique. Nouveau recueil général de planches peintes d'oiseaux. [Des Murs] Illustrations de zoologie, ou recueil de figures d’animaux peintes d’après nature. [Lesson] T Illustrations of Indian Ornithology ... [Jerdon] 304

129 75-77 89 136 137 120 106 164 135 83 144 87 127 150 156 159 93 107 78 147 73 135 135 156 118 162 157 121 126 117 152 92 135 97 77 86 121 112


Illustrations of Indian Zoology; chiefly selected from the collection of Major-General Hardwicke, F.R.S. [Gray] Illustrations of Ornithology. [Jardine & Selby] Illustrations of Ornithology. New series. [Jardine & Selby] Illustrations of the botany and other branches of natural history of the Himalayan mountains … [Royle] Illustrations of the genera of birds, embracing their generic characters; with sketches of their habits. [Brown] Illustrations of the Zoology of South Africa. [Smith] T Kupfertafeln zur Naturgeseschicte der Vögel. [Kittlitz] Kurzgefaßte gemeinnützige Naturgeschichte des In- und Auslandes ... Säugethiere. Vögel. Amphibien. [Bechstein] Le règne animal distribué d'après son organisation ... [Cuvier] Les Pigeons. [Knip & Prevost] Les Pigeons. [Knip & Temminck] Les Trochilidées ou les Colibris et les Oiseaux-Mouches ... [Lesson] T Lexicon of Parrots/ Lexikon der Papageien. [Arndt] Mongoliia i strana Tangutov, trekhletnee puteshestive v vostochnoi nagornoi Azii. Przewalski] Monographie des picidées, ou Histoire naturelle des picidés, picumninés, yuncinés ou torcols. [Malherbe] Muséum d’Histoire naturelle des Pays-Bas. Revue méthodique et critique … [Schlegel] Museum Heineanum. Verzeichniss der ornithologischen Sammlung des Oberamtmann Ferdinand Heine. [Cabanis] Narrative of a survey of the intertropical and western coasts of Australia ... [King] Nests and eggs of Indian birds: rough draft. [Hume] Neue Wirbelthiere zu der Fauna von Abyssinien gehörig, entdeckt und beschrieben. Vögel. [Rüppell] Notes sur l'Ile de la Réunion (Bourbon). [Maillard] Nouveau Dictionnaire d'Histoire Naturelle [Vieillot] Nouveau recueil de planches coloriées d'oiseaux. [Temminck & Laugier] Novitiae ad Synopsin Avium. IV – VII. [Reichenbach] Oiseaux dorés, ou à reflets métalliques. [Audebert & Vieillot] Ornis Caucasica. Die Vogelwelt des Kaukasus ... [Radde] Ornithologie d’Angola. [Barboza de Bocage] Ornithologie Nordost-Afrika’s. [von Heuglin] Ornithologische Sammlungen aus Celebes, Saleyer und Flores. [Büttikofer in Weber] Ornithologisches Taschenbuch von und für Deutschland ... [Bechstein] Reise durch verschiedene Provinzen des Russischen Reichs. [Pallas] Reise in den äussersten Norden und Osten Sibiriens. [von Middendorf] Reisen in Britisch-Guiana in den Jahren 1840-1844. [Schomburgk] Reisen in das Innere von Afrika, während der Jahre 1780 bis 1785. [Le Vaillant / Forster] Supplementum Indicis ornithologici sive Systematis ornithologiae. [Latham] Sylvan, ein Jahrbuch für Forstmänner, Jäger und Jagdfreunde. [Laurop & Fischer] Symbolæ Physicæ ... [Ehrenberg (& Hemprich)] T 305

105 111 111 138 79 148 113 73 85-86 114 152 120 70 131 124 142 80-83 113 110 139 124 158 153 134 70 131 72 160 80 74 128 161 143 123 115 116 91


Synopsis Avium, I-III. [Reichenbach] 133 Systema Naturae ... [Ed. 13] [Gmelin] 93 Tableau encyclopédique et méthodique des trois règnes de la nature. 2ᵉᵐᵉ édition. Ornithologie. [Bonnaterre & Vieillot] 78 The Animal Kingdom arranged in conformity with its organisation ... [Griffith et al.] 106 The Birds of America. [Audubon] 71 The Birds of Asia. [Gould] 100 The Birds of Australia, and the adjacent islands. [Gould] 97 The Birds of Australia, Supplement. [Gould] 100 The Birds of Australia. [Gould] 98 The Birds of Australia. [Mathews] T 125 The Birds of Europe. [Gould] 95 The Birds of Great Britain. [Gould] 102 The Birds of New Guinea ... [Gould] 102 The genera of birds: comprising their generic characters ... [Gray (& Mitchell)] T 103 The natural history of the Nectariniadæ, or sunbirds. [Jardine] 110 The Ornithological Drawings of William Swainson. Series 1. The Birds of Brazil. [Swainson] 149 The zoology of H.M.S. Beagle. The Birds. [Gould / Darwin] 98 The Zoology of New Holland. [Shaw] 146 The zoology of the voyage of H.M.S. Erebus & Terror ... [Richardson & Gray] 137 Traité d'Ornithologie ... [Lesson] 119 Trochilinarum Enumeratio ... [Reichenbach] 135 Untersuchungen über die Fauna Peruana. [von Tschudi] T 162 Verhandelingen over de Natuurlijke Geschiedenis der Nederlandsche overzeesche bezittingen. [Temminck] T 152 Vertikal'noe i gorizontal'noe raspredelenie Turkestanskikh zhivornykh. [Severtsov] 144 Vivarium naturæ or the naturalist’s miscellany. [Shaw] 146 Voyage au Pôle Sud et dans l'océanie sur les corvettes l'Astrolabe et la Zélée... [Dumont-d'Urville] 91 Voyage autour du Monde exécuté par ordre du Roi, sur la Corvette de Sa Majesté, La Coquille ... Zoologie. [Lesson & Garnot] T 122 Voyage autour du monde sur la frégate La Vénus ... Zoologie, Mammifères, Oiseaux, Reptiles et Poissons. [Petit-Thouars] 129 Voyage aux Indes-Orientales ... Zoologie. [Lesson in Bélanger] 120 Voyage dans l’Amérique méridionale ... [d'Orbigny] T 88 Voyage de découvertes de l’Astrolabe. ... Dumont D’Urville. Zoologie. [Quoy & Gaimard] 131 Voyage of H.M.S. Blonde to the Sandwich Islands, in … 1824-1825. [Anson (Byron)] 70 Wissenschaftliche Resultate der von N.M. Przewalski nach Central-Asien unternommenen Reisen. [Pleaske & Bianchi] 130 Zoographia Rosso-Asiatica ... [Pallas] 128 Zoological Illustrations. Series 1 & 2 [Swainson] T 148-149 Zoological researches in the island of Java &c. ... [Horsfield] 108 Zoologie analytique ... [Duméril] 90 Zoologische Ergebnisse einer Reise in Niederländisch Ost-Indien. [Weber] 80 Zur Ornithologie Brasiliens. [von Pelzeln] 161

306


INDEX OF PERIODICALS Names given in bold are those used as entry titles. T = Table on CD-ROM A Magyar Ornithologiai Kozpont Folyoirata 178 Abhandlungen / Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. MathematischeNaturwissenschaftliche Klasse (Munich) 167 Abhandlungen aus dem Gebiete der Naturwissenschaftlichen Hamburg 170 Abhandlungen der Akademie der Wissenschaften der DDR (Berlin) 168 Abhandlungen der Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaften. MathematischeNaturwissenschaftliche Abteilung [Klasse] 167 Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 168 Abhandlungen der Koniglich-Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin 168 Abhandlungen der Mathematisch-Physikalischen Classe der Koniglich Bayerischen Akademie der Wissenschaft 167 Abhandlungen der Physikalischen Klasse Koniglich-Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 168 Abhandlungen der Preussichen Akademie der Wissenschaften, Berlin. MathematischNaturwissenschaftliche Klasse 168 Abhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen – Vereins in Hamburg 170 Abhandlungen herausgegeben vom Naturwissenschaftlichen Verein zu Bremen T 168 Abhandlungen und Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen Vereins in Hamburg 170 Abhandlungen und Berichte aus dem Staatlichen Museum für Tierkunde in Dresden 169 Abhandlungen und Berichte der Museum für Tierkunde und Völkerkunde zu Dresden 169 Abhandlungen und Berichte des Königlichen Zoologischen und AntropologischEthnographischen Museums zu Dresden 169 Acta Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 215 Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae 225 Alauda. Études et Notes Ornithologiques T 170, 228 American Museum Novitates 171 Anales del Instituto de Biologia, Universidad de Mexico 171 Anales del Instituto Fisico-geográfica y del Museo Nacional de Costa Rica 172 Annales des Sciences Naturelles (Paris) 172 Annales du Muséum National d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris) 172, 224 Annali del Museo civico di Storia naturale di Genova (Giacomo Doria) 173, 219 Annals and Magazine of Natural History 174 Annals of Natural History 174 Annals of the Carnegie Museum 174 Annals of the Ditsong National Museum of Natural History 176 Annals of the Lyceum of Natural History of New York T 175 Annals of the New York Academy of Sciences 176 Annals of the Transvaal Museum 176 Annuaire du Musee Zoologique de l'Academie des Sciences (Petrograd) [de Russie] 177 Annuaire du Musee Zoologique de l'Academie Imperiale des Sciences T 177 Annuaire du Musee Zoologique. Academie des Sciences de l’Union des Républiques Sovietiques Socialistes (Leningrad) 177 Aquila T 178 Ararajuba T 178

307


Archives du Musée Zoologique de l’Université de Moscou Archives du Muséum [National] d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris) Archives of the Zoological Museum. Moscow State University Arkiv för Zoologi Athenaeum (The) Atti della R[eale]. Accademia delle Scienze di Torino Atti della riunione degli Scienziati Italiani T Auk T Austral Avian Record Berigten uit de Diergaarde (Amsterdam) Beschäftigingen der Berlinishen Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde Bijdragen over zoölogie, hydrobiologie en oceanographie van den Oost-Indischen Archipel Bijdragen tot de Dierkunde (Amsterdam) T Bolletino dei Musei di Zoologia ed Anatomia Comparata della Reale Universita di Torino Bulletin de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg Bulletin de la Classe Physico-Mathematique de l’Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg Bulletin de la Société Philomathique de Paris Bulletin de la Société Zoologique de France Bulletin des Sciences Naturelle et de Géologie (Paris) Bulletin des Sciences, par la Société Philomathique (Paris) Bulletin du Muséum [national] d'Histoire Naturelle Bulletin du Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle. Zoologie, Biologie et Ecologie Animales Bulletin du Muséum national d'Histoire Naturelle. Zoologie Bulletin Férussac Bulletin Général et Universel des Annonces et de Nouvelles Scientifiques Bulletin of the British Ornithologists’ Club T Bulletin of the Liverpool Museums Bulletin of the Museum of Comparative Zoölogy at Harvard College, in Cambridge Bulletin of the National Museum, State of Singapore Bulletin of the Raffles Museum T Bulletin of the Thailand Research Society, The Bulletin of the United States National Museum Bulletin Scientifique. Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg Bulletin Universel des Sciences et de l’Industrie Bulletin Zoologique Canadian Field-Naturalist (Ottawa) Chronica Naturae Commentarii Academiae Imperialis scientiarum Petropolitanae Comptes Rendus Hebdomadaires des Séances de l’Académie des Sciences Condor. Bulletin of the Cooper Ornithological Society T Contributions to Zoology Dansk Ornithologisk Forenings Tidsskrift Denkschriften de Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften Denkschriften der Koniglichen Akademie des Wissenschaften zu München Denkschriften der mathematisch-naturwissenschaftlichen Klasse der kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften L’Echo du Monde Savant Emu T 308

179 224 179 179 241 180 181 167, 181 183 222 245 250 183 166 185 185 186 187 188, 243 186 189, 224 189 189 188 188 190 190 191 191 191 220 193 185 188, 243 243 193 221 215 166, 193 194 183 194 195 167 195 195 196


Extraits de Procès-verbaux des séances de la Société Philomathique, Paris 186 Field Columbian Museum of Natural History, Ornithological Series T 197 Field Museum of Natural History, Zoological Series T 197 Fieldiana (Series 1) T 198 Forktail T 198 Gerfaut [Die Giervalk] T 198 Giornale Arcadico di Scienze, Lettere ed Arti 199 [Gray’s] Zoological Miscellany 199 L’Hermès 195 Histoire de l’Académie [Royale] des Sciences, avec les Mémoires de Mathématique et Physique 200 Humming Bird (The) 201 Ibis T 201 India Review and Journal of Foreign Science and the Arts 202 L’Institut (Paris) 202 Institut. Journal des Académies et des Sociétés scientifiques de la France et de l'étranger 202 Institut. Journal général des Sociétés et des Travaux scientifiques de la France et l'étranger 202 Issledovaniya po faune Sovetskogo Soyuza, 179 Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenie fiziko-matematicheskikh nauk 185 Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenie matematicheskikh i esteotvennykh nauk 186 Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR. Otdelenie matematicheskikh i esteotvennykh. Seriya biologicheskaya 186 Izvestiya Akademii Nauk SSSR. Seriya biologicheskaya 186 Izvestiya Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk 183 Izvestiya Rossiiskoi Akademii Nauk 183 Jaarbericht Club Nederlandsche Vogelkundigen 212 Japanese Journal of Ornithology 248 Jardine’s ‘Contributions to Ornithology’ 40, 203 Jornal de Sciencias Mathematicas, Physicas e Naturaes (Lisbon) T 167, 204 Journal analytique des nouvelles et des cours scientifiques 195 Journal für Ornithologie 205 Journal of African Zoology 241 Journal of Literature and Science (Madras) 213 Journal of Natural History 174 Journal of Ornithology 205 Journal of the Academy of Natural Sciences of Philadelphia 206 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Bengal T 206-209 Journal of the Asiatic Society of Ceylon 241 Journal of the Bombay Natural History Society 209 Journal of the Ceylon Branch of the Royal Asiatic Society 240 Journal of the East Africa and Uganda Natural History Society 209 Journal of the East Africa Natural History Society and National Museum 209 Journal of the Federated Malay States Museums T 210 Journal of the Linnean Society of London. Zoology 210 Journal of the Natural History Society of Siam 220 Journal of the Proceedings of the Linnean Society 210, 236 Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand 248 Journal of the Siam Society, Natural History Supplement 220 Journal of the South African Ornithologists' Union 229 309


Journal of the Thailand Research Society ... Natural History Supplement 220 Journal of the Wilson Ornithological Chapter of the Agassiz Association 252 Journal of the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology T 219 Journal of zoology and hydrobiology of the Indo-Australian Archipelago(and similar titles) 250 Journal of zoology of the Indo-Australian Archipelago 250 Kungliga [Kongliga] Svenska Vetenskapsakademiens Handlingar 179, 211 Limosa 212 Madjalah Ilmu Alam Untuk Indonesia 221 Madras Journal of Literature and Science 213 Magasin d’Entomologie 213 Magasin de Conchyliologie 213 Magasin de Zoologie (Paris) 166, 213, 242, 243 Magasin de Zoologie, Anatomie et Palaeontologie 214 Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne 226 Magazine of Natural History 174 Magazine of Zoology & Botany 174 Mélanges de Philosophie et de Mathematique de la Société Royale de Turin 218 Mémoires de l’Académie des Sciences de l’Institut [Impérial] de France 200 Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences de l’Institut de France 200 Mémoires de l’Académie Royale des Sciences (Turin) 218 Mémoires de l’Institut des Sciences et Arts 200 Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg Sci. Math. -Phys. et Nat. 216 Mémoires de l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg T 215 Mémoires de l’Académie des sciences de l’URSS 216 Mémoires du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle 224 Mémoires présentés à l'Académie Impériale des Sciences de St. Pétersbourg par divers savants et lus dans ses Assemblées 216, 217 Memoirs of the Museum of Victoria T 217 Memoirs of the National Museum [of Australia] T 217 Memorie della (Reale) Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 218 Messager Ornithologique 229 Miscellanea Philosophico-Mathematica Societatis – Privatae Taurensis 218 Miscellaneous Reports of the Yamashina Institute for Ornithology T 219 Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin, Zoologische Reihe 219 Mitteilungen aus dem Zoologischen Museum in Berlin 219 Mitteilungen aus der Zoologischen Sammlung des Museums für Naturkunde in Berlin 219 Mitteilungen des ornithlogischen Komitees der Koniglichen Schwedischen Akademie der Wissenschaften 211 Natural History Bulletin of the Siam Society T 220 Natural History Bulletin of the Thailand Research Society 220 Natuurkundig Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indië 221 Natuurwetenschappelijk Tijdschrift voor Nederlandsch-Indië 221 Naumannia 205, 221 Nederlandsch Tijdschrift voor de Dierkunde 222 New Zealand Bird Notes 223 Nidologist 194 Norwegian Journal of Zoology 226 Notes from the Leyden Museum 166, 222 Notornis T 223 310


Notulae Naturae 167 Nouveau Bulletin de Science, par la Société Philomathique 186 Nouvelles Annales du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle (Paris) 224 Nouvelles Archives du Muséum d’Histoire Naturelle 224 Nova Acta Academiae Scientiarum Imperialis Petropolitanae 215 Nova Acta Caeserae Leopoldino-Carolinae Germanicum Naturae Curiosum 225 Nova Acta Leopoldina: Abhandlungen der Deutschen Akademie … 225 Nova Acta Physico-Medica Academiae Caesareae Leopoldino-Carolinae 225 Novi Commentarii Academiae Imperialis scientarium Petropolitanae 215 Novitates Zoologicae T 226 Nyt Magazin for Naturvidenskaberne (Naturvidenskapene) 226 Nytt Magasin for Zoologi 226 NZ Bird Notes 223 Oesterreichische Akademie der Wissenschaften. Mathematisch-naturalwissenschaftliche Klasse. Denkschriften 195 Öfversigt af Kongliga Vetenskaps-Akademiens Förhandlingar 227 L’Oiseau 179, 228 L’Oiseau et la Revue Française d’Ornithologie T 228 Orgaan der Club van Nederlandsche Vogelkundigen 212 Ornithological Review 229 Ornithologische Mitteilungen 229 Ornithologists’ and Oologists’ Semi-annual 252 Ornitologia Colombiana T 229 Ornitologicheskii Vestnik T 229 Ostrich: (with various subititles) T 229 Ottawa Naturalist 193 Perak Museum Notes 210 Philippine Journal of Science T 167, 230 Physikalische Mathematische Abhandlungen der Koniglichen Akademie der Wissenschaften zu Berlin 168 Physiographiska Sålskapets Handlingar 231 Postilla 167 Proceedings of the Academy of Natural Sciences, Philadelphia T 167, 231-234 Proceedings of the Biological Society of Washington 166, 235 Proceedings of the Boston Society of Natural History 235 Proceedings of the Indiana Academy of Science 236 Proceedings of the Linnean Society of London 236 Proceedings of the Linnean Society of New South Wales 236 Proceedings of the New England Zoological Club 166, 237 Proceedings of the United States National Museum 166, 237 Proceedings of the Zoological Society of London 36, 239 Prodromus Faunæ Zeylanicæ; being contributions to the zoology of Ceylon 240 Recueil de travaux zoologiques, hydrobiologques et océangraphiques 250 Revista Brasiliera de Ornitologia 178 Revista de la Sociedad Mexicana de Historia Natural 241 Revue d’Histoire Naturelle Appliquée 228 Revue de Zoologie africaine 241 Revue de Zoologie et de Botanique africaines 241 Revue et Magasin de Zoologie Pure et Appliquée T 214, 242 311


Revue française d'Ornithologie (scientifique et pratique) 214, 228, 242 Revue Zoologique Africaine 241 Revue zoologique par la Société Cuvierienne T 166, 214, 242, 243 Sarawak Museum Journal T 244 Sbornik Trudov Gosudarstvennogo Zoologoicheskogo Muzeya (pri MGU) 179 Sbornik Trudov Zoologoicheskogo Muzeya MGU 179 Schriften der Berlinischen Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde 245 Schriften der Gesellschaft Naturforschender Freunde zu Berlin 245 Semi-annual, The 252 Sitzungsberichte der Mathematisch-Naturwissenschaftlichen Classe der Kaiserlichen Akademie der Wissenschaften (Vienna) 245 Sitzungsberichte der Naturwissenschaftlichen Gessellschaft Isis zu Dresden 246 Sitzungsberichte und Abhandlungen der Naturwissenschaftlichen Gessellschaft Isis in Dresden 246 South Africa Quarterly Journal 246 South African Journal of Natural History 229 Stray Feathers 247 Tori T 41, 247 Transactions and Proceedings of The New Zealand Institute 248 Transactions and Proceedings of The Royal Society of New Zealand, Dunedin 248 Transactions of the Linnean Society of London T 236, 249 Transactions of the Royal Society of New Zealand 248 Transactions of the Zoological Society of London 250 Travaux de l’Institut Zoologique, Leningrad 177 Treubia T 250 Trudy Zoologicheskogo Instituta (Rossiiskaya) Akademiya Nauk 177 Tydskrif van die Suid(er)-Afrikaanse Voëlkundige Vereniging 230 Tydskrif vir publikasie van waarnemings deur lede van die Suid-Afrikaanse Voëlkundige Vereniging 230 Verhandlungen der Kaiserlich-Königlichen zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 251 Verhandlungen der zoologisch-botanischen Gesellschaft in Wien 251 Verhandlungen des Naturwissenschaftlichen – Vereins in Hamburg 170 Verhandlungen des zoologisch-botanischen Vereins in Wien (in Osterreich) 251 Wilson Bulletin. T 252 Wilson Journal of Ornithology 252 Wilson Quarterly 252 Yearbook of the Hungarian Institute of Ornithology 178 Zapiski Akademii Nauk Soyuza 216 Zapiski Imperatorskoi Akademii Nauk po - Fiziko-Matenaticheeskomu Otdenleniyo 216 Zoe, a Biological Journal 252 Zoological Journal (The) T 253 Zoological Journal of the Linnean Society of London 210 Zoological Miscellany [Gray's] 199 Zoologische Abhandlungen Staatliches Museum für Tierkunde in Dresden 169 Zoosystematics and evolution : Mitteilungen aus dem Museum für Naturkunde in Berlin 220

312


Priority Preview