CONCH-L Archives

Conchologists List

CONCH-L@LISTSERV.UGA.EDU

Options: Use Forum View

Use Monospaced Font
Show Text Part by Default
Show All Mail Headers

Message: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Topic: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]
Author: [<< First] [< Prev] [Next >] [Last >>]

Print Reply
Subject:
From:
Richard Petit <[log in to unmask]>
Reply To:
Conchologists List <[log in to unmask]>
Date:
Sun, 2 Jan 2011 09:24:20 -0500
Content-Type:
text/plain
Parts/Attachments:
text/plain (56 lines)
Volume 6, number 1 of the PMSL (which includes the Sykes paper) was issued
on 29 March 1904.  This cover date for that issue is simply "March 1904" but
the precise date is given on the verso of the volume title page.

I have not looked but hopefully Clemam indicates that the name was
originally introduced in the genus Retusa.

I suggest great caution when using any "data" from Clemam, even if you can
get past all of the non-Code terminology.  I do not know what the Schiotte
reference is, but he obviously never saw the journal issue he cited.  It is
all too common for people to pick up an incorrect date from the web or
elsewhere and then publish it in a manner indicating it to be a verified
reference.

dick p.


----- Original Message -----
From: "Enzo Campani" <[log in to unmask]>
To: <[log in to unmask]>
Sent: Sunday, January 02, 2011 5:18 AM
Subject: [CONCH-L] Date of publication


> Hi all,
> I'm presently preparing a brief note on Diaphana marshalli (Sykes) and I
> have a problem  for the date to attach here: Skes 1905 or Sykes 1904?
> Sykes description appeared on Proceedings of the Malacological Society
> of London Vol 6: 31-32. In Clemam database the species appears as D.
> marshalli (Sykes, 1905) in the "Cyronym" section, while is presented as
> marshalli (Sykes, 1904) in the "Basionym" section. Volume 6 of the
> Proceedings refers to years 1904-1905 and at its beginning the dates of
> its issues are reported: Issue 1 - 3 are indicated as 1904, while issues
> 4 - 6 as 1905.
> In the literature the species is cited as Sykes 1905, like in Schiotte
> 1999, which seems to support the 1905 choice, but I'm deeply uncertain
> on the subject. Can you help me on the matter?
> Thanks in advance
> Enzo
>
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------
> [log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
> To leave this list, click on the following web link:
> http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
> Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
> click leave the list.
> ----------------------------------------------------------------------

----------------------------------------------------------------------
[log in to unmask] - a forum for informal discussions on molluscs
To leave this list, click on the following web link:
http://listserv.uga.edu/cgi-bin/wa?SUBED1=conch-l&A=1
Type your email address and name in the appropriate box and
click leave the list.
----------------------------------------------------------------------

ATOM RSS1 RSS2