Cissa hypoleuca - odd citation error? (1 Viewer)

[Nutcracker]

According to Peters Checklist, Dickinson et al. (a) and (b) (see Salvadori & Giglioli ref. in each), Zoonomen, Avibase, and HBW (14: 821), Cissa hypoleuca was published in Atti Reale Accademia delle Scienze di Torino 20: 427.

But looking at the original at Biodiversity Heritage Library, it is published on page 343 of that issue, while page 427 is completely unrelated (maths formulae, not about birds at all).

Anyone any guesses as to how the wrong page number could be cited in multiple places? Obviously some are copying each other, but always?

 

[Richard Klim]

Dickinson & Christidis 2014 (H&M4 2) correctly cites:

Salvadori, T. & E.H. Giglioli, 1885. Due nuove specie di uccelli della Cocincina racolta durante il viaggio della R. pirofregata 'Magenta'. ‒ Atti della Reale Accademia delle Scienze (Torino), 20: 343‐345.

 

[njlarsen]

I am not surprised. In an unrelated field, one of my friends is talking about authors of biochemistry textbooks perpetuating errors from one text book to another.

Niels

 

[l_raty]

[Here] (but you need a djvu plugin) are scans of the same text with pagination starting at 427. So both exist.

 

[l_raty]

The pagination of the articles of the volume's first fascicle is the same on BHL and on L'Emeroteca Digitale. But then the first article of the second fascicle starts at p.263 on BHL, but at p.303 on L'Emeroteca. Unfortunately, L'Emeroteca only offers separate articles: you are not shown what appeared on pp.261-302 in their exemplar.

Perhaps the Accademia issued two versions of the Atti, with distinct paginations: one that included matters of local/internal interest, for local/internal distribution, the other that did not, and that was intended to be distributed abroad?


Google Books also has a scan of the "pp.427-429" version, but it is US-only access.

 

[l_raty]

No, OK I got it, I think. It appears there were two sections in the Atti, titled respectively:

• Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali, and
• Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche.

In the Google Books exemplar, the Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche of the first fascicle starts on p.263.
In the BHL exemplar, there is no Classe di Scienze Morali, Storiche e Filologiche at all; it's the Classe di Scienze Fisiche, Matematiche e Naturali of the second fascicle that starts on p.263.

Thus they apparently edited (at least) two versions of the Atti, with distinct paginations, one with the physics, mathematics and nature-science contents only, the other that also included moral, history and philology. Cissa hypoleuca is on p.343 in the former, on p.427 on the latter. Which is "correct" will depend on which version (if any) was published first. (This is probably not to be determined just by looking at the books.)

 

[Nutcracker]

Quite a can of worms I've opened!! Thanks for checking :t: