Date: Thu, 23 Jun 2005 10:21:50 -0400
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Subject: [OGD] Xenia / query
Recently, while reviewing the primary source for the publication of the
Agenus Aa, I noticed that for
AXenia Orchidacea : Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Orchideen
in the reference given in some nomenclatural databases, the year of
publication mentioned is 1854 :
Xenia Orchidacea 1: 18. 1854. [w3Tropicos]
Xenia Orchid. 1: 18 (1854) [RBG, Kew / Monocots Chelcklist]
Xenia Orchid. 1: 18. 1 Apr 1854 [Index Nominum Genericorum]
One exception : the IPNI (International Plant Name Index) indicates 1858 :
Xen. Orchid. i. 18 (1858).
*********
Then, in the catalogue of the Natural History Museum (London, UK), both
years are given in the following fashion :
Title: Xenia Orchidacea : Beiträge zur Kenntniss der Orchideen
Publisher info: Leipzig, (1854-)1858-1900.
I wonder why.
If you own that publication or are familiar with it, would you clarify the
dual date ?
Thanks in advance for your enlightenment.
Viateur,
as I said before, it is not enough to be able to use a computer and find some
references. You have to research them.
That is why taxonomist have large libraries --- Get hold of Edition 2 of the
Stafleu and Cowan ... Get hold of the R volume,
(which is volume 4) ... look for H.G. Reichenbach (Reichenbach fil.) (because
there are other ones : H.G.L. Reichenbach, C. L. Reichenbach),
go to page 692 and Oh may all the Gods be praised ... there, you will find:
Xenia orchidacea vol. 1 ... all kinds of date ...published between 1 April 1854 and 15 October 1858 ... and then you learn that
Xenia orchid. i. 18 .... can't be dated as you don't tell me whether that "18"
refers to a page or to a colour table ...
now lets just assume that it is a page number .. but page 18 of the first
volume of the Xenia was published on the 1st of April 1854
now lets assume that the "18" is the number of the colour plate ... but plate 18 was published on the 1st of August 1854.
what is the moral of the story
1) Xen. Orchid. i.18 is a stupid way of citing
2) Xen. Orchid. i.18 (1858) is definitely wrong (They copied that mistake from
Index Kewensis)
3) If you want to do taxonomy (and this is oart of the work) ... learn to do it
correctly
now, Viateur, if you think I am always going to provide this service for you, I
have got new for you.
Cheerio
Guido
PS. Maybe next time "Icones" alias Kenneth Roberts will help you out
--
Prof. Dr. Guido J. Braem
Naunheimer Str. 17
35633 Lahnau
Deutschland/Germany
_______________________________________________
the OrchidGuide Digest (OGD)
[email protected]
http://orchidguide.com/mailman/listinfo/orchids_orchidguide.com
