Mime-Version: |
1.0 |
Sender: |
|
Subject: |
|
From: |
|
Date: |
Sun, 2 Jan 2011 09:52:44 -0500 |
In-Reply-To: |
<75FC333B374248BDB8386A9F493E01E0@ownerfb2284f83> |
Content-Type: |
text/plain; charset="us-ascii"; format=flowed |
Reply-To: |
|
Parts/Attachments: |
|
|
Thanks, Dick. I missed that. This collation can be seen on the "text"
page immediately following the "Title Page" at the top of the scroll
box at <http://www.biodiversitylibrary.org/item/52315#page/10/mode/1up>.
I must agree with your assessment of Clemam and undisciplined
Internet searches.
Harry
At 09:24 AM 1/2/2011, you wrote:
>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.
----------------------------------------------------------------------
|
|
|