• Welcome to BirdForum, the internet's largest birding community with thousands of members from all over the world. The forums are dedicated to wild birds, birding, binoculars and equipment and all that goes with it.

    Please register for an account to take part in the discussions in the forum, post your pictures in the gallery and more.
ZEISS DTI thermal imaging cameras. For more discoveries at night, and during the day.

Fauna japonica (Siebold) - Aegithalos caudatus trivirgatus (1 Viewer)

joekroex

Joek Roex
When was Aegithalos caudatus trivirgatus first published (as Parus (Megisturus) trivirgatus)?

Was it 1848 (the accepted date), or was it 1847?

Siebold's Fauna japonica was published in different parts, fascicles with text and accompanying plates, later collated and republished in 5 volumes, of which the birds were published in 1850.

The one volume of Aves has Parus (Megisturus) trivirgatus on p. 71 (text) and pl. 34 (ill.).

Tracing the fascicles through Mlíkovský (2012) to the German publication Leipziger Repertorium der deutschen und ausländischen Literatur, which lists the instalments with dates, shows the following (assuming the page numbers and plate numbers correspond between fascicles and one-volume Aves):

  • Leipziger Repertorium vol. 6 Heft 15 from 14 April 1848 has on pp. 69–70: [2379] Fauna Japonica auctore Ph. Fr. de Siebold. Animalia vertebrata elaborantibus C.J. Temminck et H. Schlegel. Aves. Fasc. 5. Lugd. Bat., Arnz. 1847. Text S. 61–68 mit 10 z. Thl. color. Taff. gr. Fol. (n. 8Thlr. 15 Ngr.)
    Inh.: Tab. 32. Parus minor. 34. Parus trivirgatus. 48. Fringilla Kawarahiba. 49. Fringilla Kawar. minor. 51. Coccothraustes vulgaris Japon. 53. Pyrrhula orientalis. 54 Pyrrh. sanguinolenta. 56. Emberiza variabilis. 59. Ember. cioides. 60 Ember. sulphurea.
  • Leipziger Repertorium vol. 7 Erster Band from 1849 has on p. 59: [95] Fauna Japonica auctore Ph. Fr. de Siebold. Animalia vertebrata elaborantibus C.J. Temminck et H. Schlegel. Aves. Fasc. VI–VIII. Lugd. Batav., Arnz et Soc. 1848. Text S. 69–92 mit 30 lithogr. u. color. Tafeln. gr. Fol. (à n. 8Thlr. 15 Ngr.)
    Die beigegebenen schön ausgeführten Tafeln enthalten: Taf. 5. B. Milvus melanotis (fem. ad.). 6. B. Buteo vulg. Japon. (fem. jun.). 7. B. Buteo Pyrrhogenys. 36. Picus awokera. 37.Picus Kisuki. 38, B. Alcedo lugubris. 39. Halcyon Coromanda major (m. et fem.). 39. B. Corvus macrorhynchus. 41. Bombycilla Phoenicoptera (m. et fem.). 45. Sturnus cineraceus, 46. Lamprotornis Pyrrhopogon (m. et fem.). 47. Alauda Japon. 50. Passer russatus (m. et f.). 55. Emberiza elegans (m., fem. et jun.). 56. B. Emberiza rutila. 57. Emberiza fucata (m. et f.). 58. Emberiza rustica (m., fem. et jun.). 59. B. Emberiza personata (m. et f.). 60. D. Columba [Vinago] Sieboldii (m. et f.). 61. Coturnix vulg. Jap. (m. et f). 62. Charadrius pluvialis orient. 63. Lobivanellus inornatus. 64. Tringa crassirostris (m., f. et jun.). 65. Totanus pulverulentus (m. et f.). 66. Numenius major. 61. Numenius minor. 68. Scolopax [Gallinago] solitaria. 70. Ardea Goisagi
    (m. et f.). 71. Ibis Nippon. 89. Sterna fuliginosa (m. et fem.).

This shows, again assuming page numbers and plate numbers correspond between the instalments and the one-volume Aves, that plate 34 of Parus trivirgatus was published in 1847 and the corresponding text in 1848. Shouldn't therefore the date for Aegithalos caudatus trivirgatus be 1847 instead of 1848? Unless publication of fasc. 5 was dated 1847 but only distributed in 1848.

Following on from this: how does one reference these instalments (whether fascicles or livraisons) generally? Are their titles the same as the book titles? The entries in the Leipziger Repertorium seem to suggest different.
 
Zoonomen has quite a long and detailed entry regarding the different parts and years of Siebold's Fauna Japonica (here).

See left Column, scroll down to bottom, click on Citational (Source) Index, onwards "[F]", scroll down to (or search for) "FaunaJap.Aves[Siebold]" ... and enjoy!

Hopefully of some help.

Björn
 
Björn wrote:

Zoonomen has quite a long and detailed entry regarding the different parts and years of Siebold's Fauna Japonica (here).

See left Column, scroll down to bottom, click on Citational (Source) Index, onwards "[F]", scroll down to (or search for) "FaunaJap.Aves[Siebold]" ... and enjoy!

I am aware of Alan Petersons argument, I just think that Mlíkovský is more recent and likely more accurate, but sadly no one has seen the instalments (I don't know whether they still exist somewhere).
 
One of the best scanned copies, that I know of, is the one from Kyoto University, Japan (here), which also includes the (blue) wrappers/covers from the different original parts/fascicles, at the very end of that certain bound book/volume.

/B
 
One of the best scanned copies, that I know of, is the one from Kyoto University, Japan (here), which also includes the (blue) wrappers/covers from the different original parts/fascicles, at the very end of that certain bound book/volume.

/B

Thanks very much for this, Björn. That is a great help in getting the titles right when referencing the various parts.

Joek
birdsandwords.eu
 
Unless publication of fasc. 5 was dated 1847 but only distributed in 1848.
As I understand it, this is what Mlíkovský accepted. I.e., he accepted (or at least did not dispute), Holthuis & Sakai's 1970 conclusion that 8 Feb 1848 was the publication date of fasc./livr. 5. His main own contribution was with the content of the livraisons, not with their dating.

If the blue pages in the Kyoto copy are indeed original wrappers, then these had no date on them, and Gersdorf must have used some other source for his "1847" dating of fascicle 5. (Which, if he received his copy in 1848 [this being suggested by the fact that this was his second announcement of a fascicle of this work in 1848], may conceivably have involved some guesswork...?)

I understand the text on the wrappers (and as cited by Gersdorf) as indicating more or less explicitly a work in progress. ("Animalia vertebrata elaborantibus C.J. Temminck et H. Schlegel" -- i.e. "Vertebrate animals, being elaborated by CJ Temminck and H Schlegel".) I don't think such a title would make much sense on a finalized work, thus I'm not really surprised it was changed. (On the final title page, a past participle "elaborata" is used, instead of a present participle "elaborantibus".)
I would avoid referring to the parts by their wrapper title without citing the final title -- but that may just be me. ;)
 
Last edited:
This is not the only taxon from this set of plates to be in this situation, by the way. These were new on the plates in livr. 5, and are in use (all are cited from the text on Zoonomen):

pl. 32: Parus minor (now Parus [major] minor)
pl. 34: Parus trivirgatus (now Aegithalos caudatus trivirgatus)
pl. 49: Fringilla kawarahiba minor (now Chloris sinica minor)
pl. 51: Coccothraustes vulgaris japonicus (now Coccothraustes coccothraustes japonicus)
pl. 54: Pyrrhula sanguinolenta (now Carpodacus sibiricus sanguinolentus)
pl. 60: Emberiza sulphurea (so spelled on the plate, now Emberiza sulphurata, taken from the text)
 
Last edited:
As I understand it, this is what Mlíkovský accepted. I.e., he accepted (or at least did not dispute), Holthuis & Sakai's 1970 conclusion that 8 Feb 1848 was the publication date of fasc./livr. 5. His main own contribution was with the content of the livraisons, not with their dating.

If the blue pages in the Kyoto copy are indeed original wrappers, then these had no date on them, and Gersdorf must have used some other source for his "1847" dating of fascicle 5. (Which, if he received his copy in 1848 [this being suggested by the fact that this was his second announcement of a fascicle of this work in 1848], may conceivably have involved some guesswork...?)

I have no reason to doubt all these authorities, of course. I have not been able to view Holthuis & Sakai (is there a digitized copy somewhere? I have search high and low), and will take 8 Feb 1848 as the publication/dispatch date of Fasc. 5 (as indeed listed by Mlíkovský). (I think I might have been a bit too enthusiastic about these dates |:D| )

In addition, the Leipziger Repertorium has a date for Fasc. 5 of 1847 in its 14 April 1848 edition, while the 28 Jan 1848 edition (p. 139) dates Fasc. 4 to be from 1848 (although this could be the Leipzig reprint, the Leiden still being dispatched 1847).

To make matters even more confusing:

  • Dickinson et al. 2006. Systematic notes on Asian birds 50 [etc.], p. 69, state in a note related to Aegithalos caudatus trivirgatus: 'The description on p. 71 probably appeared in fasc. 5 or 6 in early 1848, but was not later than Nov. 1848; the exact date of pl. 34 is not known (Holthuis & Sakai, 1970).'
  • In his table of species described in Fauna Japonicus, Mlíkovský leaves out trivirgatus altogether, conveniently?

I would avoid referring to the parts by their wrapper title without citing the final title -- but that may just be me. ;)

I will cite both as I like to give an exact publication date to documents, therefore Fasc. 5 = 1848 and a collated and republished vol. 4 Aves = 1850 (instead of a series of dates as in 1844–1850 or some sort, which is often seen).
 
The text refers to the plate so most likely the plate name is the OS??
The plate was in livr. 5, and certainly before the text, which Mlíkovský 2012 placed in livr. 9/10.
Mlíkovský treated sulphurea and sulphurata as distinct names and applied a reversal of precedence between them, calling sulphurea a nomen oblitum; but a reversal of precedence is questionably relevant if sulphurea and sulphurata are interpreted as two spellings of a single name.
 
Holthuis & Sakai (is there a digitized copy somewhere? I have search high and low)
I have only seen snippets in Google Books -- e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=C7BFAQAAIAAJ&q="fasc.+5"

In his table of species described in Fauna Japonicus, Mlíkovský leaves out trivirgatus altogether, conveniently?
Indeed, I had not noticed this. But this looks more like a plain omission to me. (Is there something that makes dealing with this particular name harder than the rest ?)
 
I have only seen snippets in Google Books -- e.g. https://books.google.com/books?id=C7BFAQAAIAAJ&q="fasc.+5"

Great, thanks Laurent, I had not thought about this. It shows the date of pl. 34 as 8 Feb 1848, which is good enough for me.

Indeed, I had not noticed this. But this looks more like a plain omission to me. (Is there something that makes dealing with this particular name harder than the rest ?)

I don't think so. You're probably right that it is either an oversight or plain omission. Thanks for your help.

Joek
birdsandwords.eu
 
Warning! This thread is more than 4 years ago old.
It's likely that no further discussion is required, in which case we recommend starting a new thread. If however you feel your response is required you can still do so.

Users who are viewing this thread

Back
Top